THCSI. Ll -\ 9m tree - we: _ £1 l . O A 1-: - .- Micm “a? 5.; 1?: .2: to University 5 / W'- This is to certify that the dissertation entitled GIFTED EDUCATION PROGRAM EVALUATION IN THE UNITFI') STATES presented by Mary Ann Duranczyk Traxler has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in Education Date July 13. 1983 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 RETURNING MATERIALS: )V1531_J Place in book drop to LJBRARJES remove this checkout from m your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. run...“ ”fl-4 3- ‘" “9%.. .' ”~67 .. - .5. '.a l . ~— I ~_. 3“ -.‘.~“ It . Ci“? 'i/"‘~~ ~'. ”E '3 ~“ 3 J . "n a? a .' i-I {‘ , . r)?” ‘i vi s: 'v . .- : ‘ 'r. u .~ I 'I ‘ ' " 1:“ L! \xJ ,‘1 ‘1»,‘-'. 9.‘ ‘\i:,:-l '4’. ‘ . 'V" F»: l... 4 ) .l ENJ- 54% U SE GEM? GIFTED EDUCATION PROGRAM EVALUATION IN THE UNITED STATES By Mary Ann Duranczyk Traxler A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Curriculum 1983 Copyright by MARY ANN DURANCZYK TRAXLER l983 ABSTRACT GIFTED EDUCATION PROGRAM EVALUATION IN THE UNITED STATES By Mary Ann Duranczyk Traxler This study assessed the current status of gifted program evaluation in public schools in the United States. Questionnaires were completed by l92 randomly selected school districts having gifted programs. Analysis of the data was based on total sample, legal status of gifted education in the states (mandated or nonmandated), and geo- graphical divisions of the United States. In addition, evaluation designs in 38 districts recommended by State Directors of Programs for the Gifted were examined. At least half the gifted programs in this study were not eval- uated throughout the year, and approximately one-third had not evaluatd the gifted program components. Very little funding was provided for evaluation, and many people who carried out gifted program evaluation were not trained evaluators. Within the limitations of this study, evaluation of gifted pro- grams in mandated states was found to be less thorough than that in non- mandated states. Programs in nonmandated states had a higher incidence of systematic program evaluation throughout the year, program evaluation designed before program implementation, program evaluation based on Mary Ann Duranczyk Traxler predetermined goals and objectives, cost of evaluation included in total gifted program budget, and trained program evaluators. Mandated districts were influenced primarily by the state department of education. The district consultant/coordinator and the building principal exerted more influence in nonmandated districts. Students, outside evaluators, other teachers, and the school board of education had little influence on various aspects of program develop- ment. Various methods were used to evaluate student progress in gifted programs. Teacher observation and creative products were the measures most often used. Although the behavioral objectives model is generally thought to be inappropriate for evaluating the progress of gifted students, this practice was found to be more prevalent in mandated districts than in nonmandated districts. Little difference was found between the randomly selected districts and those recommended as having an exceptional evaluation component included in the gifted program. Parents were reported to have more influence than the state department of education on funding in recommended districts. Systematic evaluation throughout the year and trained program evaluators were found more frequently in the recommended districts. To my mom, Ann Elizabeth Duranczyk, who always believed in me and who certainly shares this accomplishment. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to express my appreciation of the following individuals for their assistance and support during this endeavor: Dr. James Anderson, friend and dissertation director, for picking up the pieces and convincing me that they'd all fall together in the right places. The encouragement and support he has given since my undergraduate days are genuinely appreciated. Dr. James Snoddy, who served as an efficient committee chair- man, for the quality of his attention, encouragement, and sense of humor. Drs. Gaston Blom and George Sherman, who served on the com- mittee, for their time and feedback during the process of writing this dissertation. Randy Fotiu, a consultant in the Office of Research Consulta- tion, for his essential assistance with the data analysis and for the time and patience he gave in helping me survive the Michigan State University Computer Center. The State Directors of Programs for the Gifted, for their genuine intereste irl gifted education and in this study. Their wealth of information provided a broad perspective on gifted educa- tion in the United States. Those who responded to the questionnaire, without whom this study would not have been possible. The time and energy given, as well as the overwhelming amount of material sent, are most appreciated. Susan Cooley, for the meticulous preparation and typing of this manuscript. Chris Siewertsen, an incredible friend, whose caring and support I could not have done without. The wonderful children I taught during the creation of this dissertation, for their sensitivity and patience. Their enthusiasm for learning and warm hugs were a daily inspiration. John Peter Duranczyk, my father, for his caring and loving. Curt, my loving husband, for his calming and supportive presence in my life. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ......................... Chapter I. INTRODUCTION ...................... Statement of the Purpose ............... Research Questions .................. Importance of the Study ................ Limitations of the Study ............... Definitions of Terms ................. II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ................ The Purpose of Program Evaluation ........... Program-Evaluation Procedures ............. Program-Evaluation Models ............... Summary ........................ III. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ............. Population and Sample ................. Pilot Study ...................... Instrumentation .................... Procedures for Data Gathering ............. Analysis of Data ................... IV. ANALYSIS OF DATA .................... Introduction ..................... Normative Data ................... Characteristics of the Population .......... Gifted Education Program Information ........ Program Models ................... Gifted Program Supervisory Responsibility ...... Research Questions .................. Funding ....................... Personnel ...................... Influences on Curriculum .............. Influences on Identification of Gifted Students . . . Influences on Student Time Spent in the Gifted Program ...................... V Page Summary of Findings .................. 6l School Districts Recommended by State Directors of Programs for the Gifted ............... 63 V. DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 71 Discussion of the Findings .............. 7l Implications of the Study ............... 79 Recommendations for Further Research ......... 8T APPENDICES ........................... 82 A. LIST OF STATE DIRECTORS OF PROGRAMS FOR THE GIFTED . . . 83 B. STATES MANDATING GIFTED EDUCATION AND COMPOSITION OF THE SAMPLE BY STATES ................ 89 C. QUESTIONNAIRE, COVER LETTER, AND FOLLOW-UP POSTCARD . . . 93 D. GEOGRAPHICAL DIVISION OF STATES IN THE UNITED STATES AND COMPARISON OF GIFTED PROGRAM MODELS, BASED ON GEOGRAPHICAL DIVISIONS ................ 100 E. CORRESPONDENCE ..................... 103 F. UNTABULATED COMMENTS BY RESPONDENTS ........... l06 BIBLIOGRAPHY .......................... 112 vi Table 10. ll. 12. l3. 14. LIST OF TABLES Professional Positions Held by Respondents ....... ' Mandated and Nonmandated Districts by Geographical Division ....................... Budget Allocation for Gifted Education Program by Geographical Division ................ Gifted Program Models ................. A Comparison of Gifted Program Models Between Mandated and Nonmandated Districts .............. Gifted Program Evaluator Guidelines by Geographical Divisions ...................... Factors Influencing Personnel Changes in Mandated and Nonmandated School Districts ............. Factors Influencing Curriculum Changes in Mandated and Nonmandated School Districts ............. Factors Influencing Changes in Gifted Student Identification in Mandated and Nonmandated School Districts ...................... Methods of Evaluating Students in Gifted Programs Achievement Tests as Measures of Student Progress in Gifted Programs by Geographic Division ........ Method of Reporting Gifted Program Evaluation Results to Building Principals ................ Method of Reporting Gifted Program Evaluation Results to the State Department of Education ......... Methods of Evaluating Students in Gifted Programs in School Districts Recommended by State Directors of Programs for the Gifted ............... vii Page 40 42 44 45 46 52 53 54 56 58 59 6O 61 69 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Statement of the Purpose The purpose of this study is to examine current practices in the evaluation of gifted education programs in the public schools of the United States and to determine how these practices affect program development. Research Questions 1. How are programs for gifted children reported to be currently evaluated? 2. What aspects of the program are reported to be evalu- ated? 3. Who is reported to be involved in the evaluation process? 4. What effects do evaluations reportedly have on program changes? 5. Whose evaluation, i.e., students, parents, teachers, administrators, school board members, outside evaluators, is reported to have the greatest effect on the various aspects of program develop- ment for the gifted? 6. How are evaluation results reported to effect changes in various aspects of program development? 7. How is the growth of students in the gifted program reported to be evaluated? Importance of the Study Educators generally agree that students, teachers, adminis- trators, as well as total instructional programs must be evaluated. According to Nadler and Shore (1979), however, there has been much controversy regarding the validity and relevance of most educational evaluations. They felt that the underlying mission of these efforts appears to be essentially the same: to determine the degree to which an educational program is meeting the needs of those it is intended to serve. They broadly defined this as an attempt to develop guide- lines for narrowing the gap between the actual and the ideal state of affairs. Evans and Marken (l982) believed that the need for a promi- nent program evaluation is clear. The major challenge for program implementation, according to these authors, is to create cost- efficient, nonthreatening process-evaluation procedures that are accepted and used convincingly in the classroom setting. According to Zettel (1980), there are substantial data to suggest that the individuals least likely to receive an educational program designed to facilitate maximum growth may be those who are gifted and talented. Although Shertzer (l960) felt that gifted programs can only improve and become more effective through systematic and continuous evaluation, he found that few schools examine their program efforts for superior and talented students as critically as they should. In surveying the literature concerning gifted and talented programs, Shertzer located almost no published evaluation studies. He attributed the lack of evaluative studies in this area to the absence of appropriate criteria or standardized evaluative instruments as well as to the fact that many programs initiate evaluation after the pro- gram has been operating for some time rather than designing an evaluation before it begins and evaluating on a continuous basis. Despite the growing numbers of gifted programs throughout the United States, the actively supported national and international organizations dedicated to the education of gifted and talented chil- dren, and the training programs for teachers of the gifted and tal- ented that have been created at colleges and universities across the country, Neuman (1981) maintained that there is a lack of hard data on what works and what doesn't, for whom, and under what conditions. Gowan and Demos (1964) conceptualized educational evaluation as the meeting edge between a culture's past and its future. They felt there must be change if the culture is to grow and progress, but it must be carefully articulated so that the heritage of the past with its continuity of values can be mediated and reinterpreted to form a framework and matrix out of which the future may develop with- out loss of content. Furthermore, the authors maintained that one function of evaluation is to introduce the new discoveries to society so that they may become familiar, respectable, and accepted. Finally, Rimm (1982) believed that if one is committed to gifted programs, a commitment to evaluation must necessarily follow-- for evaluation is the only source of discovering what is effective for the gifted child. Limitations of the Study 1. The Michigan State University Library and the University of Wyoming Library were the major sources of reference material. 2. Information provided by the State Directors of Programs for the Gifted and persons involved in gifted education at the school— district level were the primary sources for data collection. 3. Gifted programs involved in this study were not observed by the writer. 4. The study is subject to the weakness inherent in the use of a questionnaire. It depends upon responses and interpretation of persons cooperating in the study. 5. This study examines the various methods used in evaluat- ing gifted education programs in public schools throughout the United States, but it does not attempt to evaluate any particular individual, school, or school district. 6. Questionnaires were sent to school districts identified as having gifted programs. No independent determination was made as to the extent or comprehensiveness of the programs. 7. State Directors of Programs for the Gifted were asked to recommend gifted programs in their states that include an exceptional evaluation component. Guidelines for recommendation were not provided. 8. The results of this study are determined by data gathered from and apply only to the school districts that responded to the questionnaire. Definitions of Terms Gifted/talented/creative (G/TLC) students are those identified by professionally qualified persons who, by virtue of outstanding abilities, are capable of high performance. These are children who require differentiated educational programs and/or services beyond those normally provided by the regular school program in order to realize their contribution to self and society. Children capable of high performance include those with demonstrated achievement and/or potential ability in any of the following areas: general intellectual ability specific academic aptitude creative or productive thinking leadership ability visual and performing arts. (U.S. Commissioner of Education, 1972) U'l-DIOON-J This study includes students and programs encompassing kindergarten through twelfth grade. Evaluation is a judgment of merit, sometimes based solely on measurements, such as those provided by test scores, but more fre- quently involving the synthesis of various measurements, critical incidents, subjective impressions, and other kinds of evidence weighed in the process of carefully appraising the effects of an educational experience (Good, 1973). State Directors of Programs for the Gifted are those persons whose full- or part-time responsibility it is to coordinate gifted programs throughout a state and/or to consult with schools offering gifted education programs. Gifted coordinator/consultant (district level) is that person whose full- or part-time responsibility it is to coordinate gifted programs throughout a school district, to consult with schools offer- ing gifted education programs, and to provide inservice for the school faculties. Administration includes building principals and school superintendents. Gifted/talented/creative (G/T/C) education programs are intended to be qualitatively different programs designed to meet the needs of gifted, talented, or creative students. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The literature pertinent to this study was reviewed in three general areas. The following topics were determined as significant to this study: (1) the purpose of program evaluation, (2) program- evaluation procedures, and (3) program-evaluation models. A summary is presented at the end of the chapter. The Purpose of Program Evaluation According to Renzulli (1978), the general purpose of evalua- tion is to gather, analyze, and disseminate information that can be used to make decisions about educational programs. He maintained that evaluation should always be directed toward action that will honefully result in the improvement of services to students through the continua- tion, modification, or elimination of conditions that effect learning. He emphasized that the conditions that effect learning are not neces- sarily restricted to the instructional process. Borich and Jemelka (1981) contended that the evaluation of instruction must yield the information that instructional designers need in order to make decisions about the adequacy of instructional programs. According to Saracho (l982), evaluation is used to under- stand what factors contribute to the effectiveness of the program and how its components produce their effects. Newland (1976) 7 maintained that it is first necessary to ascertain which of these components are present in the program being evaluated. He felt that this phase is primarily one of description. Once the components are found to be present, determination must be made as to whether they are functioning in the intended manner. This is the judgmental pro- cess that must be carried out in the light of a comprehension of the fundamental philosophy of the program. Whitmore (1980) stated that program evaluation is conducted at two levels: a. to determine whether the program developed for an individual student was appropriate and has allowed the child to meet his goals; and b. to evaluate the success and contribution of the program as one of a school district's educational alternatives. (p. 224) She further suggested that planning for evaluation must begin with the goals as hypothesized effects of the program. Desired outcomes must then be specified as behavioral indices of change that can guide the ongoing evaluation by the teacher. The last facet, she felt, is to identify objective measures that can be administered to the students to assess program effects. Curriculum evaluation is currently regarded as a technical process by Willis (1981), which assumes that empirically verifiable data collected under carefully controlled procedures should be used to determine causal relationships. Evaluation is thought to be the fit between specified goals and measured results of a curriculum. Shertzer (1960) defined the evaluation of a superior student program as a systematic effort to ascertain the extent to which the objectives of the program are being attained, and emphasized that it may be necessary to differentiate between the objectives of such a program and educational objectives in general. He pointed out that evaluation considers the means--the processes, practices, and procedures--by which a superior student program endeavors to achieve its purposes. The determination that a program for superior and talented students is achieving its desired results may serve as an indication that the program should be maintained in a similar fashion. If, however, it is found that the program is not accomplishing its purposes, changes can be made and the program can be redirected. Shertzer cautioned that the purpose of a program for superior students may not be realized for several years after the program is initiated. In the meantime, he suggested that attention be directed to the means by which the program is attempting to accomplish this purpose. Renzulli (1980) raised a question that he found both critics and people within the field asking: "How do we know that our programs are having any payoff or that one approach to gifted education has certain advantages over another?" He pointed out that respectable evaluation designs cannot be effectively developed when "our programs are little more than patchwork collections of random practices and activities." The author suggested that researchers and evaluators can only obtain effective results when a model or a comprehensive and integrated approach to programming is tested. The need for program evaluation in gifted education, accord- ing to Renzulli (1978), has grown out of a general concern on the part of decision makers for greater accountability in all aspects of education. He stated that gifted programs have been especially lO vulnerable to substituting the "trying equals success" attitude for rigorous attempts to evaluate program effectiveness. He further maintained that gifted students, because they are gifted, have the capacity for high-level performance, and their products are often of superior quality. He challenged the evaluator to examine two ques- tions: - What types of programmatic learning experiences fostered this outstanding performance? - Was the performance really attributable to the program or did it emerge simply because the child was gifted and we had the good sense to stay out of his way? (p. 468) According to Lawless (1977), the first reason for evaluation is that many people have been involved in planning and implementing the program and will want to know if what was done was worthwhile, as well as if it would be worth doing again. It is essential to dis- cover which components of the program were successful and which need to be improved or abandoned. Most writers agree that program evaluation is essential to the success of programs for the gifted and talented. Shannon (1960) listed several good reasons for carrying on systematic program evalua- tion: 1. Since evaluation is impossible unless planned for at the outset, the plan will necessarily include a clear statement of objectives. 2. There must be some means of evaluating instructional proce- dure or methodology. Thus poor teaching approaches or inadequate curriculum content can perhaps be discovered. 3. Evaluation tests the quality of decisions made relative to learning activities and teaching procedures. Decision mak- ing is an essential part of all program development, and the decisions made must always be subject to revision. 4. Evaluation points up areas of the program that need improve- ment and provides a sound justification for curriculum changes. Evaluation includes the identification of logical and worth- while program modifications. (p. 342) 11 For an evaluation to play a constructive and positive role in the overall process of education, Renzulli (1978) recommended that it should attempt to fulfill as many of the following objectives as possible: 1. To discover how effectively the objectives of a program are being fulfilled. To discover unplanned and unexpected consequences that are resulting from particular program practices. To determine the underlying policies and related activities that contribute to success or failure in particular areas. To provide continuous in-process feedback at intermediate stages throughout the course of a program. To suggest realistic, as well as ideal, alternative courses of action for program modification. (p. 471) 01th Program-Evaluation Procedures DeHaan (1960) stated that the educational program for talented students should be continuously and carefully examined for areas that need improvement. He emphasized the need for an evaluation based on clear objectives to be outlined early in the program. Before the program begins, educators should have made decisions concerning what their program should be and what their students should attain. Lawless (1977) agreed that the evaluation format should be designed before the start of the program and felt that it should be feasible, measure what is hoped to be accomplished, and be informal yet objec- tive. According to Gowan and Demos (1964), every program for any educational objective should be set up so that evaluation can occur naturally as an integral part of the program. Failure to do this, they said, often results in poorly thought out programs. They 12 offered helpful questions that school personnel should consider when planning curriculum adjustments for gifted children: - How can we plan the program so that evaluation will be feas- ible and orderly? - How will what we propose to do differ from what should be done by any good teacher in any good heterogeneous class- room? (p. 419) Ganapole (1982) maintained that well-formulated objectives and appropriate measures to assess their attainment are essential elements of any well-planned, systematic effort toward evaluation. Renzulli (1978) observed that evaluations have all too often been launched as "last-ditch efforts" to save programs that are in danger of being eliminated or sharply reduced in the amount of support they receive. He admitted that a hastily conducted evaluation may be better than none at all, but insisted that the best weapon in the battle for program support and survival is a carefully planned and comprehensive evaluation that will accurately document all aspects of the services being provided for gifted and talented youngsters. Renzulli further emphasized that evaluation should be an essential part of total programming, and each step of the planning and develop- ment phases of a program for the gifted should give careful attention to the ways in which evaluative information can be gathered, organ- ized, and presented to decision-making individuals or groups. Epstein (1979) agreed that evaluation should be carried out during the program's operation to indicate necessary modifications, as well as at the end of the year's program to determine total results. She emphasized the need for a good evaluation plan to highlight the (differences between the gifted and the regular program and to show 13 how they contribute to improving the education of the students involved. According to Olsen, Newgard, and Maselli (1978), an in-depth program evaluation should be undertaken once a year. They recommended that evaluations focus on the program objectives and that all evalu- ators be given specific guidelines. They also suggested that the evaluation process include teachers involved in the program, other teachers in the school, students, parents, and possibly outside evaluators. Renzulli (1978) pointed out that although most contemporary evaluation theorists would agree that measuring the attainment of objectives is the most important goal of evaluation, they would also support the position that the evaluator must be free to investigate any and all conditions that may influence the effective operation of a program. He took the position that any activity or condition that may haveiidirect or indirect effect on a program is "fair game" for the evaluator. Epstein (1979) also agreed that sometimes there are unexpected but highly desirable results that should be consciously incorporated into revisions of the program. It is generally accepted that evaluation should be central to course improvement, but Atkin (1968) pointed out that only when evaluation is seen as a facilitating rather than as a limiting func- tion will it be used more effectively by curriculum developers. He suggested that a flexible approach to the role of evaluation be fos- tered by evaluation specialists themselves. It is essential that 14 accepted practices be questioned in terms of their relevance and appropriateness. According to Borich and Jemelka (1981), the primary purpose of evaluation has traditionally been to provide decision makers with information about the effectiveness of an instructional program. Within this framework, evaluation is viewed as a process in which data are obtained, analyzed, and synthesized into relevant information for decision making. Renzulli (1978) stated that decision making is a fundamental goal of evaluation and it is, therefore, important to identify deci- sion makers and the actions over which they have control at the beginning of any evaluation endeavor. He recommended that the evaluator and decision makers work closely together in an attempt to identify the parameters of change over which each decision-making individual or group has control. He maintained that economy and efficiency can be improved in an evaluation design if we begin by raising three interrelated questions: 1. Who are the decision makers at various levels of possible action? 2. Over what actions do decision makers have control? 3. What information is necessary for making decisions? (p. 469) According to Saracho (1982), the evaluator's major responsi- bility is to provide sufficient information about the program so that others have a basis to make decisions. She felt that only persons who are involved in the program are in a position to determine its direction. The information provided by the evaluator, together with the knowledge and experience of those who are involved, should deter- mine program modifications. 15 Most writers in the field of evaluation stress the importance of involving the evaluator from the start of any educational endeavor. Renzulli (1978) felt that through such involvement the evaluator can continually bring to the attention of program developers the steps that must be taken and the resources that must be allocated if evalua- tion is to serve useful purposes. He also pointed out a problem that he called "the tail wagging the dog" problem. That is, "in his efforts to develop a 'respectable' evaluation design, the evaluator may 'steer' a program in very subtle ways." Renzulli (1978) emphasized the need for the evaluator to create a positive atmosphere of helpfulness rather than destructive- ness. He suggested that the evaluator point out that he is interested in reporting the positive aspects of the program as well as those that are in need of change. He also maintained that unless those being evaluated see some value and benefit for themselves as a result of participating in the evaluation, they are likely to approach the process halfheartedly or may even try to distort evaluative informa- tion. There is no easy way to resolve the dilemma that often exists between the evaluator's need to be rigorous and scientific and the program developer's desire to be innovative and flexible in program- ming for gifted and talented students, Renzulli (1978) admitted. He recommended that a basic guide should be that the program determines the type of evaluation design and the instruments to be used, and that it is the evaluator's responsibility to respect the integrity of the program when he is planning his evaluation activities. Renzulli l6 emphasized that suggestions made by the evaluator while the program is in progress should "grow" out of findings about the program as it exists in its natural form rather than as a result of the evaluator's influence on the program. Finally, in terms of the evaluator, Renzulli (1980) maintained that regardless of who hires and pays the evaluator, he must keep the best interests of the student in mind. He reminded educators that an honest evaluation is impossible unless the students' best interests are foremost in the evaluator's mind. According to Gallagher (1964), most school systems use a rather simple method of evaluation by asking teachers: 1. Do the children like it? 2. Do they seem to be learning from it? 3. Are the teachers comfortable and convinced that the method is useful? (p. 115) Although he felt that this method is reasonably effective, Gallagher questioned its adequacy. The only drawback that he pointed out is that most new programs generate excitement and enthusiasm, which may affect the teachers' responses. Rather than reacting to the innate virtues of the program, teachers may simply be responding to the program's newness. To make the program evaluation as effective and efficient as possible, Clark (1979) suggested that a plan be designed that allows for information to be cycled throughout the year. She made the fol- lowing recommendations: 1. Know clearly what each person or group involved in your program needs to know. Choose instruments and tools to give you that information. Set up collection points throughout the year in addition to your assessment procedure. Collect only useful data. hum l7 5. Communicate your information to all concerned persons and groups. It is impossible to get the kind of support your program needs if key people remain unaware of what you are doing. 6. Use your evaluation data to produce growth in the program and with the gifted students. If done properly, evaluation will never be a final judgment. (pp. 156-57) Willis (1981) listed four basic processes of criticism inherent in any fully developed evaluation: observation, description, inter- pretation, and judgment. He pointed out that the dominant form of curriculum evaluation often focuses on description only, rather than on the development of all four processes from a variety of perspec- tives. Once decisions makers who will use the evaluation information to modify the program operation are identified, Renzulli and Callahan (1978) suggested that specific goals and objectives be defined based on both cognitive and affective aspects of student development. Sources of information and a timeline for collecting it must then be determined. Evaluation instruments appropriate for the needs of the program should be selected. The data should then be analyzed and the evaluation findings presented to the intended audience. According to Shannon (1960), educational evaluation often refers to a process concerned with the study of the status of, or the changes in, children's behavior with reference to the attainment of educational goals. She listed the steps that she felt are involved in the evaluation process: Isolation and description of the problem to be studied. Clarification of values bearing on the problem. Development of criteria for studying the problem. Expansion of the criteria in terms of behavior sought. hWN—J 18 Establishment of situations in which behavior can be studied. Use of instruments to gather behavioral data. Analysis of behavioral change. Implementation of decisions made upon the basis of the findings. (pp. 341-42) oowmm Newland (1976) maintained that the evaluation procedure must not be perceived only in terms of extant tests, questionnaires, or other convenient devices and procedures and that the concept of evalua- tion must incorporate both short-term and long-term time spans. Callahan (1981) pointed out that evaluations of programs for the gifted and talented have been criticized for their overreliance on attitudinal data for assessing program merit, use of inappropriate tests for assessing student achievement, and lack of careful documen— tation and evaluation of the curriculum implemented in the program. According to Parke and Buescher (l982), evaluators have diffi- culty following the standardized-testing approach to evaluation because programs for the gifted and talented rely on individualized objectives, multiple-programming options, curricular activities emphasizing higher level mental processes, and involve students selected by their unusu- ally high performance. The authors maintained that assessing programs for the gifted and talented necessitates moving beyond the norm and designing methods that will be sensitive to the nature of the program and will provide useful information for decision makers. Although the testing industry has provided a vast array of instruments for measuring the mastery of basic skills and general achievement, Renzulli (1980) pointed out that there has thus far been an absence of technology when it comes to evaluating the more complex types of learning and the creative accomplishments that oftentimes 19 characterize programs for the gifted and talented. Epstein (1979) agreed that while higher levels of thinking and changes in attitudes are difficult to measure, they are central to a gifted program and should not be omitted from evaluation. According to Shertzer (1960), school officials must devise and improvise instruments to assess and evaluate the objectives, practices, and procedures of their programs for superior students. He suggested that teachers be trained to observe the growth of indi- vidual students' creative, critical, and independent thinking, includ- ing involvement with the challenge of problems and the mastery of problem-solving techniques. The development of a mature philosophy should also be considered. Instruments devised to evaluate these aspects of the program may be crude by the standards of a professional researcher, he admitted, but they can be of great value in a specific school situation. Renzulli (1980) maintained that creative products are the right and proper types of data upon which our evaluations should focus. They may not be as precise and objective as scores on a standardized test, he admitted, but strongly felt that "it is far better to have imprecise information about the right type of objective than precise information about the wrong objective." Rimm (1982) agreed that the objectives of a gifted program cannot always be measured by tests. She suggested two criterion-referenced approaches to evaluating products. The first compares pre- to post-test samples of work, whereas the second is based on a percentage of criteria achieved. 20 Because of the relatively unique objectives of programs for the gifted and talented, Renzulli (1980) felt that the traditional models, instruments, and procedures that have been used to evaluate programs in other areas of education are largely inappropriate for evaluating programs that serve the gifted. He described the behavioral-objectives model as being inappropriate for gifted programs because it focuses primarily on those behaviors that are most easily measured, as well as the most trivial. Shertzer (1960) felt that standardized tests may not be approp- riate for evaluating the superior student program because these tests cannot adequately measure all the important outcomes of education. He pointed out that superior students frequently score near the top on standardized tests of ability, achievement, and aptitude, and in retesting there is not enough ceiling to reflect the students' growth. He suggested administering tests of creativity and problem solving or advanced-level tests to measure these students' achievement and attitudes. In addition, Ganopole (1982) stated that norm-referenced tests are constructed to measure generalized abilities and are typically intended to meet a wide variety of educational- and administrative- decision purposes. It is unlikely that the content of a norm- referenced test will exactly match the specific curricular emphasis of any given program. She suggested that such probability is even further diminished in programs for the gifted in which unique content, skills, and abilities are emphasized. 21 Renzulli (1978) reported that many experts in the testing field believe that complex objectives, i.e., analysis, synthesis, evaluation, and critical and creative thinking, can be evaluated. He pointed out that Robert Stake (1973), considered to be one of America's foremost authorities on evaluation, suggested that the total cost of measuring such objectives may be 100 times that of administering a 45-minute standardized paper-and-pencil test. The errors of testing increase markedly, according to Stake, when moving from highly specific areas of performance to items that attempt to measure higher mental processes and unreached human potential. Renzulli seemed to agree with Stake in his contention that the only reason that test error in standardized instruments has been tolerated is because very few important educational decisions are ever based on test scores alone. According to Morgan, Tennant, and Gold (1980), gifted students can be encouraged to evaluate their own work and to make improvements until it has become their best. They maintained that, in this way, students will learn to consider the content to determine if their output would be improved through further knowledge or better skill or a more positive attitude. They also suggested that these students need to be able to review the thinking processes used and make changes where necessary. Parke and Buescher (1982) suggested that students become documenters of their own progress toward the goals and objectives of the program. The authors felt that this student-derived information in concert with additional appropriately chosen instruments can 22 provide evaluators with a wealth of information on program products and processes. Whitmore (1980) stated that a child must assume ownership of both the goal and the problems blocking the attainment of the goal in order for him to develop intrinsic achievement motivation. She felt that this basically involves an evaluative process in which the student determines the needed changes in order for him to experience success in meeting his goals. Whitmore further stated that an emphasis on student self-evaluation does not eliminate the profes— sional judgment of the teacher, but rather emphasizes the partnership of teacher and student with each bringing unique skills to the task. She described the teacher as knowing best how the child's performance compares to that of other students, what errors in thinking may be causing mistakes in completed work, how to remediate weaknesses, and how to view more objectively effort and quality of work. The student was described as knowing best how he feels and may possess more accu- rate perceptions of himself, his ability, his school work, and his future. She concluded that with the combined information from the student and the teacher, more accurate and constructive evaluation can occur. Ganopole (1982) maintained that changes in learner behavior or performance are the single most significant source for evaluating a program. Such changes can best be ascertained, she felt, through the use of appropriate, well-constructed measures designed to assess the explicitly stated desired outcomes of a program. 23 Clark (1979) advised that the students' growth be considered individually, comparable only to their own past achievements and developed criteria. She suggested the possibility of the student and the teacher deciding together what form the evaluations should take in order to best show achievement when the learning goal has been completed. In addition to information about pupil progress, Clark reminded educators to evaluate the learning situation. The structure, time, classroom atmosphere, and the goals of the program must all be considered. In an evaluation of the worth and effectiveness of a program for superior and talented students, Shertzer (1960) felt that the effect of the program on the school's total climate is highly impor- tant. For this reason, he suggested that evaluative information be obtained from as many participants as possible--students, teachers, counselors, administrators, and parents. The objectives of the program; its organizational pattern; the contributions of teachers, counselors, administrators, and others to the program; and the atti- tudes and understandings of the community toward the program are all essential components of the superior student program evaluation. Renzulli (1978) emphasized that the purpose of an evaluation is not to come up with a simple score or rating that attempts to express the success or failure of a given program. He felt that an evaluation must provide relatively specific information that supports the maintenance, modification, or termination of particular program components. He concluded, then, that an evaluation should be "diag- nostic" in the sense that it pinpoints by careful examination the 24 circumstances and conditions that result in identifiable changes in performance, attitude, or other indicators of program effectiveness. Gowan and Demos (1964) cited Passow et al . (1955) for presenting one of the best discussions in the literature on evaluation. They indicated specific criteria as: improved identification increased achievement increased interest increased college-going improved teaching procedures - improved social status - improved personal adjustment - improved attitudes toward school - improved community attitudes - clearer vocational interests - improved guidance procedures. (p. 420) Gowan and Demos (1964) stated that those who look at education from a naively scientific point of view think that it is evaluation that determines whether a given program will continue. They suggested, however, that programs are not dropped or retained based on whether or not they prove effective, but rather in terms of whether the community and the educators want them to continue. Program-Evaluation Models A number of evaluation models have been developed and are discussed in this section. The advanced programs in Palo Alto con- sist of enrichment classes, resource specialists, Independent Study Center, Alternative High School, Honors, and Advanced Placement. Lundy (1979) reported that evaluation in these programs consists of measures that are district designed to measure parent, student, and teacher satisfaction. 25 According to Feldhusen and Wyman (1980), the Super Saturday program was evaluated formally with specifically designed survey instruments, rather than with informal verbal feedback. In addition to its primary focus on determining student, parent, and teacher satisfaction with the completed program, they pointed out that the surveys also request information to be used in planning the next Super Saturday sessions. In A Longitudinal Study of the Gifted Disadvantaged, Smilansky and Nevo (1978) established an evaluation plan to provide information on the merit of the program and to guide its development when the first group of students was accepted into the program. Although the evaluation design has undergone various changes, they maintained that it has always been based on the assumption that evaluation should be an integral part of the development of this program. Nadler and Shore (1979) presented the Judicial Evaluation Model, which was used by the Bureau for the Education of the Handi- capped to investigate the feasibility of implementing the Individual Education Program (I.E.P.) Component of Public Law 94-142. They found that this model uses a format analogous to a jury trial. Evaluation proceeds via a hearing or forum in which two advocates, designated as case analysts, defend opposing views of a program or policy. Rimm (1982) developed an evaluation model that demonstrates how different aspects of the educational program fit together and how evaluation can monitor all educational inputs, processes, and outcomes. Use of the model helps to prevent the implementation of any activity 26 without its evaluation. It also encourages decision makers to be aware of how their decisions are related to student outcomes. The Student Self-Documentation Process Model, designed for students nine years and above, was developed by Parke and Buescher (1982). It is said to be flexible enough to adjust to changing cur- ricula and is substantial enough to be used as a component in more comprehensive evaluation efforts. To assess the relationship between the planned and actual program outcomes, program objectives are com- pared with actual activities by the students' self-documentation. According to Barbe and Renzulli (1975), the need for evidence of program effectiveness is well recognized within the field of edu- cation for the gifted. They pointed out that the particularized objectives and relatively unique learning experiences that char- acterize truly differential programs require the use of objective evaluative schemes that take into account a variety of important program dimensions. Newland (1976) found Renzulli and Ward's Diagnostic and Evaluative Scales for Differential Education of the Gifted to be con- siderably more encompassing and reflecting a distillation of the Opinions of experts in the field of the gifted. Renzulli (1975) stated that the DESDEG was developed as a guide for both self-study as well as for assessment by an external evaluation team. DESDEG consists of five interrelated components: the Manual, the Evaluative Scales, the Basic Information Forms, the Evaluator's Workbook, and the Summary Report. Renzulli (1975) pointed out the Evaluative Scales, whichconsistof 15 Program Requirements that were judged by a group of 27 experts to be important characteristics of comprehensive programs for the gifted. The Program Requirements are organized around five "Key Features," which represent general areas of consideration in pro- gram development and implementation. These Key Features are philosophy and objectives, student identification and placement, the curriculum, the teacher, and program organization and operation. Renzulli (1975) discussed several program-evaluation models. Following is a summary of these models. Eash's Differential Evaluation Model was specifically designed for the evaluation of new and innovative programs. Eash formulated a three-stage evaluation methodology that parallels the stages of program maturation because he felt that new programs need the freedom to evolve and clarify objectives as experience dictates. Evaluation is carried out along a continuum that is composed of three models: the initiatory model, the developmental model, and the integrated model. Renzulli felt that the most valuable feature of Eash's model is its allowance for modifications in program objectives over time. The Provus Discrepancy Model is intended to facilitate design changes and data gathering essential to making judgments about the effectiveness of a program. Its purpose is to guide the evaluator in making comparisons between a program and its design on one hand, and a series of agreed-upon program standards on the other. Information essential to program improvement is collected, and discrepancies are noted between performance and standards. This discrepancy information is then useful in modifying the program so that performance and design standard become equalized. 28 Stufflebeam identified four types of educational decisions: planning, structuring, implementing, and recycling decisions. Cor- responding to these decisions are four kinds of evaluation: Context, input, process, and product. These are the key components of this model and come at different times in the evaluation process. They also serve different decision-making functions. Renzulli found that a general structure for implementing the evaluation is common to each stage. This structure consists of six components: focusing the evaluation, information collection, information organization, infor- mation analysis, information reporting, and the administration of the evaluation. Renzulli felt that the positive aspect of this model is that it provides for evaluation throughout the program. On the nega- tive side, however, he felt that the procedures suggested by Stuffle- beam are both complex and costly. Stake's "Countenance" Model involves both description and judgment. Stake proposed that the evaluator consider three types of information: 1. antecedent data--data existing prior to the teaching and learning experience which may relate to program outcomes. 2. transaction data--encounters which comprise the process of education, dynamic interactions between teacher and student. 3. outcome data--the impact of instruction and the consequences of the program, both short- and long-term. Information concerning the discrepancies between the descriptive record of what educators intend to happen and what observers actually find is essential. Although Stake suggested that the judgmental aspects of evaluation can be accomplished with respect to some abso- lute standards of excellence as reflected by personal judgments of 29 experts in a given field or a relative comparison with the character- istics of outcomes themselves, Renzulli seemed to disagree. He main- tained that a decision should not be made with regard to a single characteristic from a single program. Rather, he suggested that the evaluator set the priorities, determine which characteristics he will attend to, and decide what type of judgment data he will use. A recommendation is then made as a result of this process. Morra and Hill (1978) described the Program for Talented Elementary Students in Alexandria, Virginia, 1974-1977. It offered three program options: - Interest Activity: students participated in activities in the area of their gift as supervised by a trained teacher. This took place outside the regular classroom and did not substitute for regular instruction. - Curriculum Area Learning Center: pupils participated in an advanced class in the subject-area of their gift; this class substituted for regular instruction in the subject. - Enrichment: a special teacher assisted the regular teacher in providing additional materials to enrich the child's class- room work. The "enrichment" teacher met frequently with the child to provide additional instruction and to monitor progress. (pp. 114-15) During each of the three years of this study, evaluation involved the pre- and post-administration of achievement, creativity, and self- concept tests. John Ferrell, Director of the Area Service Center for Edu- cators of Gifted Children, John A. Logan College, Carterville, Illinois, has provided two evaluative devices that reflect a growing concern for realistic evaluations of programs for the gifted and talented. The Ferrell Gifted Program Evaluation Instrument for Teachers is a form developed for teachers for the purpose of gathering 30 information based on the assumption that a gifted program involves qualitative changes in student thinking, as well as quantitative content changes. The Evaluation of Instructional Programs for Gifted and Talented Children is based on a concern for the total gifted education program offered within the local district as well as the extent to which the local program meets the assessed needs of the individual gifted students within the program. Newland (1976) offered the following questions that might be considered in the evaluation of gifted programs: 1. Were the teachers of bright pupils given, or required to obtain any special preparation that would help them to accomplish properly their particular instructional tasks? 2. Did the teachers actually do the kind of "teaching" approp- riate to helping bright children learn effectively? 3. What measuring devices or procedures were used in identify- ing children and in ascertaining the outcomes of their learn- ing experiences? Were teachers provided with criteria for selecting students? What was the nature and possible contributive effect of school and social factors in both the school and nonschool lives of gifted children before they were exposed to the different educational experience? (pp. 338-39) 01-h In assessing organized classroom enrichment programs, Kough (1960) felt that classroom teachers should have identified the students who are gifted and be able to describe the specific curriculum modifi- cations being made for each youngster. In evaluating a program for gifted and talented youngsters, Shannon (1960) recommended assessment of program objectives, screening techniques and identification procedures, learning experiences for students, program leadership, and financial backing. Important con- siderations also include gifted students' acceptance among their peers 31 in various school situations, their attitudes toward self and toward school, as well as the effects of experiences in different programs on their attitudes. Shannon maintained that evaluation demands the continuous and cooperative participation of all personnel related to the endeavor. She felt that schools must gather evaluative data in order to be able to determine whether or not they are actually pro- viding experiences appr0priate for the optimum development of gifted students. Finally, Renzulli (1975) believed that evaluation is basically a simple process that need not be shrouded in complicated language, statistics, or the jargon of psychometrics. He saw evaluation as a logical process that should not be an end in itself. He found that people usually raise simple, straightforward questions, and felt that the evaluation should attempt to provide simple, straightforward answers . Summary Program evaluation is essential to the success of programs for the gifted and talented and should be an integral part of program development. Well-formulated objectives should serve as the basis for systematic program evaluation, which should be clearly outlined before a program is implemented. Decision making is the fundamental goal of both formative and summative evaluation. Gifted programs should be assessed both throughout their operation in order that neces- sary modifications can be addressed and at the year's end to determine total results. 32 It is generally felt that the evaluator should be involved in the program development from the start and should operate with spe- cific guidelines in mind. Evaluative information should be obtained from all who are involved in the program. The primary responsibility of the evaluator is to provide decision makers with sufficient infor- mation about the program. The findings should then be considered and decisions made as to the maintenance, modification, or termination of specific program components. Research indicates that more complex types of learning and creative accomplishments are difficult to evaluate and yet of great- est significance in programs for the gifted and talented. Traditional instruments and procedures, such as standardized tests and behavioral objectives, are often inadequate for evaluating the progress of gifted students. The program-evaluation models discussed offer a variety of evaluation alternatives. CHAPTER III RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY This chapter presents the research design for this study. The following elements are discussed: the population and sample, the pilot study, the survey instrument, the procedures for data gathering, and the analysis of the data. Population and Sample A list of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted was obtained from the Office of Gifted and Talented in Washington, D.C. (See Appendix A.) A letter requesting general information was sent to all 50 state directors as well as directors in American Samoa, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and the Department of Defense Dependents Schools. (See Appendix E.) Forty- five state directors and the Gifted and Talented Education Coordinator in Guam responded by mail. Information was obtained from one state director by phone. No response was received from four states that mandate gifted education nor from American Samoa, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, or the Department of Defense Dependents Schools. In addition to a request for general information, directors were asked to recommend school districts that might be contacted for more specific information concerning their evaluation 33 34 procedures. Twelve state directors reconmended specific districts to the researcher. The population for this study included all school districts having gifted programs in the 50 states. Unless otherwise indicated by state directors, it was assumed that all school districts had gifted programs in states mandating gifted education. A stratified random sample of 325 school districts was selected. Randomization was achieved by constructing alphabetical lists of school districts having gifted programs and making alter- nate selections from the lists. At least 5% of the districts listed by state directors and no fewer than two districts in a given state comprised the sample. Unless a specific list of school districts having gifted programs was provided by the state director, 5% of the total number of school districts in states mandating gifted education were included in the sample. (Appendix 8 contains a list of states mandating gifted education.) In addition, 75 districts were recommended by 12 State Directors of Programs for the Gifted. Because six was the mean number of programs recommended, it was arbitrarily determined that no more than six districts be randomly selected and contacted in any given state. Gifted programs in 50 recommended districts constituted this sample. Randomization was achieved by making alternate selections from alphabetical lists of school districts. Data collected from these districts were analyzed separately. 35 Pilot Study To obtain information about the coherence and comprehensive- ness of the questionnaire, a pilot study was conducted. Fifteen school districts having gifted programs in Michigan were randomly selected from the list of districts reporting that their gifted pro- gram evaluation process included program evaluation. This list is presented in the 1981-82 Data Summary, Gifted and Talented Program, Michigan Public Schools. Eleven of the 15 questionnaires (73%) were returned. In addition, five individuals recognized as competent in the field of gifted education were asked to critique the question- naire. All five responded with suggestions. Revisions in the ques- tionnaire were made based on input from those involved in the pilot study. Instrumentation The instrument comprised three sections. (See Appendix C.) The first requested school district information, including gifted program enrollment. The second section dealt with gifted education program information. Respondents were asked to check "yes" or "no" in answer to the following questions: 1. Is gifted education mandated in your state? 2. Are gifted students specifically identified for program- ming in your district? 3. Do you feel that most classroom teachers are able to describe the specific curriculum modifications being made for gifted students? 4. Is there a specific budget for gifted education in your district? 36 Given a list of program models, respondents were asked to check which model or models best described what was offered in their respective school districts. They were then asked to rank specified individuals based on their supervisory responsibility for the gifted program. The third section focused specifically on evaluation informa— tion. Respondents were asked to check "yes" or "no" in answer to the following questions: 1. Is your gifted program systematically evaluated through- out the year? 2. Is your gifted program evaluated only at the end of the school year? 3. Was the program evaluation designed before the program was implemented? 4. Is your program evaluation based on pre-determined goals or objectives? 5. Are specific guidelines given to all those involved in the evaluation? 6. Are those conducting the evaluation of the gifted pro- grams trained as program evaluators? 7. Is the cost of evaluating the gifted program part of the total gifted program budget? Respondents were asked to indicate the percentage of the gifted pro- gram budget that was spent on evaluation. Questions developed to determine which individual or group of individuals had the greatest influence on funding, personnel, curriculum, identification, and student time spent in the gifted program were included in this section. Respondents were then asked to indicate those who were directly informed of the program evaluation results as well as the means that were used to convey this information. Finally, respondents were asked to indicate how the progress of students in the gifted program 37 was evaluated. Additional comments concerning evaluation procedures or provisions made for gifted students were encouraged. The instrument, a cover letter describing the nature of the research, and a stamped self-addressed envelope were mailed to the selected school districts. (A copy of the questionnaire and cover letter may be found in Appendix C.) Procedures for Data Gathering, A list of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted was obtained from the Office of Gifted and Talented in Washington, D.C. A letter was sent to the directors requesting general information. This included the number and types of gifted programs provided through- out the state and a description of evaluation models used by the state or individual districts to evaluate their program. State directors were also asked to recommend districts the researcher should contact for more specific information concerning their evaluation procedures. Thirty-five state directors responded initially. A follow-up letter was then sent to those who had not responded. Ultimately, 45 state directors (90%) and the Gifted and Talented Education Coordinator in Guam responded by mail. Information was obtained from one state director by phone. A questionnaire was developed by the researcher, and the pilot study was conducted. The final draft of the questionnaire included input from those involved in the pilot study. Question- naires were then sent to the 325 randomly selected districts and to the 50 randomly selected recommended districts. A follow-up postcard 38 was sent to those who had not responded. (See Appendix C.) Data were coded and typed into the computer system at Michigan State University for analysis. Analysis of Data Responses from the questionnaire were coded on worksheets. These data were then typed into the computer system at Michigan State University. Statistical analysis of the data was accomplished through the use of a Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) from the Vogelback Computing Center at Northwestern University and made available at the Michigan State University Computer Center. Descrip- tive information was acquired, which included frequencies, means, and percentages. An analysis of the frequency distribution of the responses was made in terms of the entire sample, the geographical region of the country, and the legal status of gifted education in the states. Data collected from districts recommended by state directors were processed similarly in a separate file. Additional information submitted by respondents was reviewed and summarized. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA Introduction This study examined current practices in the evaluation of gifted education programs in the public schools of the United States and their impact on program development. This chapter presents an analysis and discussion of the data collected. Data were analyzed in terms of the total sample, the legal status of gifted education in the states (mandated or nonmandated), and the geographical division of the United States. A list of states that mandate gifted education can be found in Appendix B. The nine geographical divisions of the United States were those used by the National Center for Education Statistics and are listed in Appendix 0. Tables displaying data pertinent to this study are included and dis- cussed in the text. Items in the tables are listed in the same order in which they appear in the questionnaire. Normative Data Questionnaires were mailed to 325 randomly selected school districts having gifted programs in the 50 states. Of the 325, responses were received from 62% (203) of the participants. One was returned as undeliverable. Data were analyzed from 59% (192) of the responses. Eleven of the questionnaires were nut included in the 39 40 data analysis either because the gifted program in the district was only in its planning stages or the program had been deleted from the curriculum due to budget cuts. The sample was representative of 47 of the 50 states. The range of state representation was .5% to 7.8%. The percentage of return in each state ranged from 33.3% to 100%. The contribution of the state to the sample does not represent its percentage of return. Complete data are shown in Appendix 8. Of the 50 questionnaires mailed to school districts recom- mended as exceptional by State Directors of Programs for the Gifted, 76% (38) were returned. Data from this sample are discussed separately at the end of this chapter. Characteristics of the Population The participants were asked to answer several demographic questions regarding the status of gifted education in their respective school districts. In Table l, the professional positions held by the 192 persons who responded are presented. Table l.--Professional positions held by respondents. . . . Absolute Relative ProfeSSIOnal P051tions Frequency Frequency (%) Gifted program consultant/coordinator 66 34.4 Superintendent 15 7.8 Building principal 18 9.4 Curriculum director 15 7.8 Gifted program teacher 16 8.3 Director of special education 13 6.8 Other 44 22.9 Not indicated 5 2.6 41 Various position titles comprising the "other" category included the following: counselor, teacher, exceptional children's program director, director of pupil personnel services, administra- tive assistant, librarian, director of special services/programs, school psychologist, federal programs coordinator, home school visitor, director-~evaluation and research, director--administrative services, director--prep/tech program, projects coordinator, supervisor-—major work honors program, and coordinator--elementary guided independent study program. Of the 192 participants, 40.6% (78) were in states that man- date gifted education, and 57.8% (111) were in states that do not mandate gifted education. About 2% (3) did not respond to the ques- tion concerning mandated gifted education. According to a list of states that mandate gifted education, the three districts were located in states that do not mandate gifted education. Data from these dis- tricts were included with those from the nonmandated districts for analysis. The nine geographical divisions of the United States used in this study are shown in Table 2, along with the legal status of gifted education in the divisions. Gifted Education Program Information Gifted students were reported to be specifically identified for programming in 96.4% (185) of the 192 participating districts. Gifted students were not identified for a specific program in 3.6% (7) of the participating school districts. In terms of student 42 coco. u aueaaFFFemFm II c... U waFm.mm u momsamuwco F.m FF o.ooF FF o.o o ucmchm 3mz F.oF Fm m.F¢ mF F.mm mF uFacmFu< mFuqu m.NF em o.m~ o o.mu wF uFucmFu< spzom m.m NF o.om m o.om m Fugucmu susom pmmm N.FF mm o.mm mm o.m F Fugucmu sueoz “mam m.w FF m.FF N ~.wm mF Fmgucmu spzom pmmz o.mF om F.om FF m.m¢ mF Fmepcmu goeoz “no: m.m oF m.mm oF m.Fm o :quczoz ¢.m mF m.mw oF F.FF N uFFFuma Fwy .cmcd .cmcu Fwy .cmeu .cmgm FFV .cmgu .omgu m>Fumme masFoma< m>Fpome muzFoma< m>Fumme mpaFomn< mcomem quoF umpmucmscoz umumvcmz .coFmF>Fu quFsamcmomm Fa mqugmeu umymucmscoc use cmumucmzuu.m anmF 43 identification, no significant difference was found between mandated and nonmandated districts nor among the geographical divisions of the country. Of the 192 respondents, 60.4% (116) felt that most classroom teachers were unable to describe the specific curriculum modifica- tions being made for gifted students. This item received a positive response from 38% (73) of the respondents, and 1.6% (3) offered no opinion. In terms of teacher awareness of curriculum modifications for gifted students, no significant difference was found between mandated and nonmandated districts nor among the geographical divi- sions. A specific budget for gifted education was reported in 76% (146) of the 192 school districts. No specific budget for gifted education was reported by 24% (46) of the participants. A significant difference (.0003) in budgeting was found between mandated and non- mandated districts. Of the 146 districts reporting a specific budget for gifted education, 33.6% (49) were in districts with mandated gifted education. This comprised 62% of the 79 districts with mandated gifted education. Of the 146, 66.4% (97) were in districts without mandated gifted education. This comprised 85.8% of the 113 districts with nonmandated gifted education. Data specific to geographical division are presented in Table 3. 44 Table 3.--Budget allocation for gifted education program by geographi- cal division. . Budget for No Budget for 9999r39h1cal Gifted Education Gifted Education DIVISIOnS Absolute Absolute Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Pacific 18 100.0 0 0.0 Mountain 11 68.8 5 31.3 West North Central 22 73.3 8 26.7 West South Central 10 58.8 7 41.2 East North Central 30 90.9 3 9.1 East South Central 5 41.7 7 58.3 South Atlantic 21 87.5 3 12.5 Middle Atlantic 21 67.7 10 32.3 New England 8 72.7 3 27.3 Raw chi-square = 23.78047 df = 8 Significance = .0025 Program Models Respondents were asked to indicate the gifted program model or models that best describe what is offered in their respective school districts. The following categories were designated by the researcher: pull-out 2 hours or less a week, pull-out 1 day or more a week, cluster groups within classrooms, advanced placement/ acceleration, Enrichment Triad Model, honors programs, magnet schools, ability grouping, and Saturday seminars. Respondents were asked to describe any other program models that were offered in their districts. The categories were not mutually exclusive. Each category was analyzed individually as to the number who responded positively compared with the total number of respondents. As Table 4 indicates, the most p0pu- 1ar program models were pull-out programs for two hours or less a 45 week and advanced placement/acceleration. Magnet schools and Satur- day seminars seemed to be the least popular. Table 4.--Gifted program models. Absolute Relative Program MOdEIS Frequency Frequency (%) Pull-out 2 hours or less a week 87 45.3 Pull-out 1 day or more a week 46 24.0 Cluster groups within classrooms 50 26.0 Advanced placement/acceleration 86 44.8 Enrichment Triad Model 41 21.4 Honors programs 55 28 6 Magnet schools 11 5.7 Ability grouping 63 32.8 Saturday seminars 14 7.3 Other 76 39.6 The following program models were mentioned in addition to those designated: pull-out programs of various time durations, cur- riculum compacting, mentor programs, field trips, clubs, independent study, summer programs, self-contained classrooms, Feldhusen's 3-Stage Model, projects, after-school programs, various seminars, leadership courses, college courses open to identified junior and senior high school students, career-option programs, and enrichment within the regular curriculum. In Table 5, data specific to program models in mandated and nonmandated districts are presented. Each category is analyzed indi- vidually as to the number who responded positively compared with the total number of mandated or nonmandated districts. 46 m.mm Fe m.om Fe m.¢¢ mm emcpo m.n wF m.w oF F.m c mgmcFEmm amcgspmm 2m 8 3m 8 :8 MN 838; 32.22 mm FF ad 2 F: F $8.? 3.2%: 9% mm 8.8 8 SN 2 228: 293: ¢.FN Fe ¢.NN Fm ~.NF oF quoz umFLF Newschgcm . . . :onmemquum . . . mEoogmmmFu . . . xmmz m . . . xmmz m m we mm m mm me N mm Ne mmoF so «Lao; N azotFan FNV .cmgd .umgd FNV .cmgm .cwgd ARV .umgd .cwgu m>Fmemm wusFomn< m>Fumme muaFomn< w>Fumme mpaFoma< quoF umuou:m&=oz umpmccmz .moquumFu vmamvcmEcoc use cmumucme cmmzpmn mquoE Emgmosa umuFFm mo comFemasou <-u.m anmF 47 In analyzing the program-model data based on geographical division, the trend seemed to be that the Middle Atlantic division had the highest rate (71.0%) of pull—out programs for two hours or less a week. The Pacific division reported the highest percentage of advanced placement/acceleration (66.7%), cluster groups within classrooms (61.1%), and honors programs (72.2%). Complete data are shown in Appendix 0. Gifted Program Supervisory Responsibility_ The district consultant/coordinator for gifted education was found to have the most supervisory responsibility for the gifted pro- gram. This was indicated by 34.9% (67) of the respondents. Building principals and gifted program teachers were ranked second and third, respectively. Less frequently mentioned as having the most responsi- bility for the district's gifted programs were: elementary director, director of special education, director of exceptional children's program, curriculum director, librarian, assistant superintendent, assistant principal, counselor, director of special services, Project Challenge management committee, and gifted and talented instructional supervisor. In relation to supervisory responsibility for the gifted program, no significant difference was found between mandated and nonmandated districts nor among the geographical divisions of the United States. Research Questions As the data were being analyzed, an interaction was found between the gifted program components and the evaluation process 48 examined in response to the research questions found on page 1. This necessitated discussion of more than one research question at a time. 1. How are programs for gifted children reported to be currently eValuated? Participants were asked to respond to several questions con- cerning the timing of the gifted program evaluation process. Gifted program evaluation was reported to be carried on systematically throughout the year by 43.2% (83) of the 192 respondents. In 50% (96) of the reporting school districts, evaluation did not occur throughout the year. About 7% (13) of the participants did not respond to this item. A significant difference (.0381) was found between mandated and nonmandated districts. Of the 74 districts mandating gifted education, 36.5% (27) reported that systematic pro- gram evaluation occurred throughout the year. Of the 105 districts not mandating gifted education, 53.3% (56) reported that systematic evaluation occurred throughout the year. No significant difference was found among the geographical divisions of the country. Gifted programs were reported to be evaluated only at the end of the year by approximately half the respondents. About 9% (18) of the participants did not respond to this item. No significant dif- ference was found between mandated and nonmandated districts nor among the geographical divisions of the United States. Approximately half the respondents reported that the district's gifted program evaluation was designed before the program was imple- mented. About 9% (14) of the participants did not respond to this question. A significant difference (.0501) was found between mandated 49 and nonmandated districts. Of the 71 districts in states mandating gifted education, 40.8% (29) reported having the program evaluation designed before the program's implementation. Of the 107 districts in states not mandating gifted education, 57% (61) reported this procedure. No significant difference for this item was found among the geographical divisions. A program evaluation based on predetermined goals or objec- tives was reported by 70.8% (136) of the respondents. Predetermined goals or objectives did not serve as the basis for program evaluation in 21.4% (41) of the participating districts, and 7.8% (15) offered no response. Differences were significant at .0103 for mandated and nonmandated districts. Of the 71 districts in states mandating gifted education, 66.2% (47) reported predetermined goals or objectives as the basis for the district's gifted program evaluation. Of the 106 districts in states not mandating gifted education, 84% (89) reported this procedure. No significant difference for this item was found among the geographical divisions of the United States. 2. What aspects of the program are reported to be evaluated? 3. Who is reported to be involved in the evaluationpprocess? 5. Whose evaluation, i.e., students, parents, teachers, admin- istrators, school board members, outside evaluators, is reported to have the greatest effect ongthe various aspects of program development for the gifted? Gifted education programs comprise a number of components that are affected by the various people who are involved in the pro- grams. This study addressed funding, personnel, curriculum, identi- fication of the gifted, and student time spent in the gifted program 50 as they are influenced by the following people: students, parents, gifted program teachers, other teachers, building principals, district consultant/coordinator, superintendent, school board of education, state department of education, and outside evaluators. Funding 0f the 192 participants, 42.7% (82) indicated that the cost of evaluating the gifted program was part of the total gifted program budget. This was not the case with 48.4% (93) of the respondents, and 8.9% (17) offered no response. A significant difference (.0016) was found between mandated and nonmandated districts. Of the 72 respondents in states having mandated gifted education, 31.9% (23) reported that the cost of evaluating the gifted program was part of the total gifted program budget, compared with 57.3% (59) of the respondents in states without mandated gifted education. Although no significant difference was found among the geographical divisions, this practice seemed to be more prevalent in the Mountain and East North Central divisions. Participants were asked to indicate the percentage of the gifted program budget that is spent on evaluation. Of 192 respondents, 83.3% (160) reported spending 0-5% on evaluation. Almost 6% (11) of the respondents reported spending more than 5%. No response was made by 10.9% (21) of the reporting districts. A comparison of data from mandated and nonmandated districts yielded similar results. In terms of funding for the gifted program evaluation, no significant differ- ence was found among the geographical divisions. 51 Of the 192 respondents, 33.3% (64) did not indicate which persons were most influential in causing changes in funding for the gifted program. The state department of education was reported to have the greatest influence in this area by 25.8% (33) of the 128 who responded. Students, outside evaluators, and other teachers were found to have the least influence on funding changes. No significant difference was found between mandated and nonmandated districts. The data implied, however, that parents may have had more influence on funding in nonmandated districts. In terms of geographical division, the tendency was for the state department of education to have little influence on funding changes in the East North Central division. Funding in this division was affected by parents and the district consultant/coordinator for gifted education. The superintendent had some influence on funding in all but the Pacific division. A number of respondents mentioned funding problems due to the reduction or elimination of federal, state, and/or local resources. Personnel Of the 192 respondents, 64.1% (123) indicated that those responsible for conducting the evaluation of the gifted program were not trained as program evaluators. Trained evaluators were reported by 29.2% (56) of the respondents, and 6.8% (13) did not respond. Of the 56 respondents who reported trained program evaluators, 32.1% (18) were in mandated districts and 67.9% (38) were in nonmandated districts. Although no significant difference was found among the geographical divisions, New England reported the highest percentage (60%) of trained evaluators. 52 Of 192 participants, 90.1% (173) responded to the item concern- ing specific guidelines given to those involved in the evaluation. Approximately half the respondents reported having such guidelines. 0f the 85 school districts that reported having specific guidelines, 34.1% (29) were in mandated districts and 65.9% (56) were in non- mandated districts. A significant difference was found among the geographical divisions. The Pacific and New England divisions reported the highest rate for existence of evaluation guidelines. (See Table 6.) Table 6.--Gifted program evaluator guidelines by geographical divi- sions. Guidelines for No Guidelines Geographical Evaluators for Evaluators DlVlSlODS Absolute Absolute Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Pacific 14 82.4 3 17.6 Mountain 6 46.2 7 53.8 West North Central 11 40.7 16 59.3 West South Central 6 42.9 8 57.1 East North Central 17 54.8 14 45.2 East South Central 4 36.4 7 63.6 South Atlantic 12 54.5 10 45.5 Middle Atlantic 8 28.6 20 71.4 New England 7 70.0 3 30.0 Raw chi-square = 16.39230 df = 8 Significance = .0371 Of the 192 participants, 29.2% (56) did not specify whose evaluations were most influential in causing changes in personnel. The changes to be considered were number of personnel, roles of per- sonnel, and preparation of personnel. The district consultant/ coordinator for gifted education was reported to have the most 53 influence in causing personnel changes by 29.4% (40) of the 136 who responded. Students and outside evaluators were found to have the least effect on personnel changes. In terms of mandated and non- mandated districts, the superintendent and the state department of education had more influence in mandated districts. The district consultant/coordinator and the building principal had more influence on personnel changes in nonmandated districts. These differences are presented in Table 7. Table 7.--Factors influencing personnel changes in mandated and nonmandated school districts. I f] . Mandated Nonmandated n uenc1ng Factors Absolute Absolute Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Students 0 0.0 l 1.4 Parents 4 6.5 3 4.1 Gifted program teachers 6 9.7 2 2.7 Other teachers 1 1.6 3 4.1 Building principals 7 11.3 18 24.3 District consultant] coordinator 13 21.0 27 36 5 Superintendent 15 24.2 10 13.5 School board of education 2 3.2 6 8.1 State department of education 13 21.0 3 4.1 Outside evaluators l 1.6 l 1.4 Raw chi-square = 22.24724 df = 9 Significance = .0081 Although no significant difference was found among geographic divisions, the tendency was for the building principal and the super- intendent to have more influence than the district consultant/ coordinator in the West South Central division and the state 54 department of education to have more influence on personnel changes in the East South Central division. Influences on Curriculum Of the 192 participants, 20.3% (39) did not indicate whose evaluations were most influential in changing the gifted program cur- riculum. Gifted program teachers were reported to have the most influence on the program's curriculum by 37.3% (57) of the 153 who responded. The school board of education and outside evaluators were found to have the least influence on curriculum. It was reported that the state department of education had more influence on curricu- lum in mandated districts, and the district consultant/coordinator had more influence in nonmandated districts. Differences in responses from mandated and nonmandated districts are presented in Table 8. Table 8.--Factors influencing curriculum changes in mandated and nonmandated school districts. . Mandated Nonmandated Influenc1ng Ab 1 t Ab 1 t Factors so u e so u e Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Students 3 4.6 6 6.8 Parents 1 1.5 1 1.1 Gifted program teachers 28 43.1 29 33.0 Other teachers 1 1.5 5 5.7 Building principals 4 6.2 6 6.8 District consultant/ coordinator 9 13.8 34 38.6 Superintendent 5 7.7 2 2.3 School board of education 1 l .5 1 1 .1 State department of education 11 16.9 3 3.4 Outside evaluators 2 3.1 1 1.1 Raw chi-square = 21.84573 df = 9 Significance = .0094 55 Although no significant difference was found among geographi- cal divisions, the tendency was for the district consultant/coordinator to have more influence on curriculum in the Pacific, East North Central, and East South Central divisions. The state department of education seemed to have more influence on curriculum in the West South Central division. Influences on Identification of Gifted Students Of the 192 respondents, 24% (46) did not indicate whose evalua- tions were most influential in causing changes in the identification of the gifted. The district consultant/coordinator for gifted educa- tion was reported to have the most influence in this area by 30.8% (45) of the 146 who responded. The state department of education was ranked second by 20.8% (40) of the respondents as having the greatest influence on the identification of gifted students. Students, the school board of education, and outside evaluators were found to have the least effect on identification procedures. It was reported that the district consultant/coordinator had more influence on student identification in nonmandated districts, while the state department of education had more influence on this component in mandated dis- tricts. Differences in responses are presented in Table 9. Although no significant difference in influence was found among geographical divisions, the tendency was for the state depart- ment of education to have more influence in the Pacific, West South Central, East South Central, and South Atlantic divisions. The 56 gifted program teacher seemed to have more influence on the identi- fication of gifted students in the Mountain division. Table 9.--Factors influencing changes in gifted student identification in mandated and nonmandated school districts. , Mandated Nonmandated Influenc1ng Ab 1 t Ab 1 t Factors so u e so u e Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Students 0 0.0 O 0.0 Parents 1 1.7 1 1.1 Gifted program teachers 13 22.0 22 25.3 Other teachers 2 3.4 6 6.9 Building principals 2 3.4 6 6.9 District consultant/ coordinator 7 11.9 38 43.7 Superintendent 2 3.4 l 1.1 School board of education 1 l .7 O 0.0 State department of education 28 47.5 12 13.8 Outside evaluators 3 5.1 l 1.1 Raw chi-square = 32.21830 df = 8 Significance = .0001 Influences on Student Time Spent in the Gifted Program 0f the 192 participants, 28.1% (54) did not indicate whose evaluations were most influential in causing changes in student time spent in the gifted program. The gifted program teacher was reported to have the most influence in this area by 25.4% (35) of the 138 who responded. The district consultant/coordinator was ranked second as having the greatest influence on student time spent in the gifted program. Outside evaluators and students were found to have the least effect on student time spent in the gifted program. Although 57 no significant difference was found between districts in mandated and nonmandated districts, the data seemed to imply that parents and the district consultant/coordinator had more influence on student time spent in the gifted program in nonmandated districts. In terms of geographic divisions, the tendency was for the state department of education to have more influence on student time spent in the gifted program in the East South Central division. 7. How is the growth of students in the giftedprggram reported to be evaluated? Participants were asked to specify the measures used to evaluate the progress of students in the gifted program. At least one method of evaluation was indicated by 189 participants. Those desig- nated by the researcher were the following: intelligence tests, mastery of behavioral objectives, teacher-made tests, creative products, standardized achievement tests, student self-evaluation, and teacher observation. It was possible for participants to indicate more than one method of evaluation. Relative frequency was based on the number of responses in a given category compared with 189 respond- ents. The frequency of responses is presented in Table 10. Participants were asked to list other measures used to evalu- ate students' progress in the gifted program. These included the following: parent, teacher, and student questionnaires creative-thinking tests correct completion of tasks in the program parent observation 58 - pre/post assessment with creativity test, Rorschach Test using the Projection Regression evaluation model - extracurricular activities - results of creative competitions - completion of goals on Individualized Education Program (IEP) - indications that student is searching out more information - evaluation by counselors who maintain ongoing program with elementary students Table lO.--Methods of evaluating students in gifted programs. . Absolute Relative Methods of Evaluation Frequency Frequency (%) Intelligence tests 41 21.7 Mastery of behavioral objectives 93 48.4 Teacher-made tests 97 50.5 Creative products 132 68.8 Standardized achievement tests 94 49.0 Student self-evaluation 110 57.3 Teacher observation 172 89.6 Other 29 15.1 The only measure that was found to be significantly different (.0044) between mandated and nonmandated districts was the mastery of behavioral objectives. Of the 77 mandated districts, 62.3% (48) evaluated student progress in relation to the mastery of objectives and 37.7% (29) did not. 0f the 112 respondents in nonmandated dis- tricts, 40.2% (45) used this method and 59.8% (67) did not. The only method of evaluating student progress that was found to be significantly different among the geographic divisions was the use of standardized achievement tests. This measure was found to be most prevalent in the East South Central and West South Central 59 divisions. It was reported to be used the least in the Middle Atlan- tic division. (See Table 11.) Table ll.--Achievement tests as measures of student progress in gifted programs by geographic division. Geographic Divisions Relative Frequency (%) East South Central 75.0 West South Central 73.3 Pacific 66.7 East North Central 60.6 New England 50.0 West North Central 46.7 Mountain 37.5 South Atlantic 37.5 Middle Atlantic 25.8 4. What effects do evaluations reportedly have on program changes? 6. How are evaluation results reported to effect changes in various aspects of program development? Evaluation results can and should be used to effect appropri- ate changes in program development. At least half the gifted programs involved in this study were not evaluated throughout the year, and approximately one-third had not evaluated the components of the program. Very little funding was provided for evaluation, and few districts reported planned evaluation procedures. Many respondents indicated that program changes had not occurred since the gifted program had been ini- tiated. Participants were asked to indicate the persons who were directly informed of the program evaluation results and the means that 60 were used to convey the information. Between 18.2% and 34.4% of the 192 participants did not respond to these items. 0f the 192 respondents, 28.1% (54) indicated that no evalua- tion results were conveyed to students in the gifted program. The local news media received no report in 39.1% (75) of the responding school districts. Written reports were submitted to the superin- tendent (47.4%), building principals (43.2%), gifted program teachers (42.2%), district consultants/coordinators (42.2%), state department of education (39.1%), school board of education (32.8%), and parents of the gifted (29.7%). It was reported that other teachers received an oral report in 25.5% of the cases reported and a written report in 24.0% of the cases reported. Significant differences were found in reporting methods to building principals and to the state department of education between mandated and nonmandated districts. (See Tables 12 and 13.) Table 12.--Method of reporting gifted program evaluation results to building principals. Mandated Nonmandated Method Of Reporting Absolute Absolute Frequency Percent Frequency Percent No report 6 10.2 7 7.2 Oral report 14 23.7 9 9.3 Written report 31 52.5 52 53.6 Oral and written reports 8 13.6 29 29.9 Raw chi-square = 9.71616 df = 3 Significance = .0211 61 Table 13.--Method of reporting gifted program evaluation results to the state department of education. Mandated Nonmandated Method Of Reporting Absolute Absolute Frequency Percent Frequency Percent No report 13 23.2 16 16.8 Oral report 16 28.6 12 12.6 Written report 21 37.5 42 44.2 Oral and written reports 6 10.7 25 26.3 Raw chi-square = 10.12982 df = 3 Significance = .0175 Several participants in mandated districts indicated that the state department of education conducted an on-site evaluation. Although no significant difference was found among geographi- cal divisions, the trend seemed to be that the greatest percentage of written reports was submitted to the state department of education in the Pacific, East South Central, and South Atlantic divisions. Summary of Findings The major findings in this study are: 1. At least half the gifted programs in this studywere not evaluated throughout the year. 2. Pull-out programs and advanced placement/acceleration were the most popular gifted program models. 3. It was felt that most classroom teachers were unable to describe specific curriculum modifications made for gifted students. 4. A specific budget for gifted education was provided in most school districts having gifted programs. 62 5. Very little funding was provided for evaluating gifted programs. 6. Many people who carried out gifted program evaluation were not trained evaluators. 7. Approximately one-third of the school districts involved in this study had not evaluated the components of the gifted program. 8. Nonmandated when compared to mandated districts showed a higher incidence of the following: (a) systematic program evaluation throughout the year, (b) program evaluation designed before implemen- tation of the program, (c) program evaluation based on predetermined goals and objectives, (d) cost of evaluation included in total gifted program budget, and (e) trained program evaluators. 9. Mandated districts were influenced more by the state department of education. Nonmandated districts were influenced more by the district consultant/coordinator and the building principal. 10. The West South Central and South Atlantic divisions included a higher percentage of mandated districts. 11. Funding was most affected by the state department of edu- cation. Personnel and the identification of gifted students were most affected by the district consultant/coordinator. Curriculum and student time spent in the program were most affected by the gifted program teacher. 12. Students, outside evaluators, other teachers, and the school board of education had little influence on the various aspects of the gifted program. 63 13. Teacher observation and creative products were the meas- ures most often used to evaluate student progress in the gifted program. Intelligence tests were used the least. 14. Mastery of behavioral objectives was used more in man- dated districts than in nonmandated districts to evaluate student progress in the gifted program. 15. Written reports of gifted program evaluation results were the most frequently used system of reporting gifted program evaluation results. School Districts Recommended by State Directors of Programs for the Gifted The State Directors of Programs for the Gifted were asked to recommend gifted programs in their states that included an excep- tional evaluation component. Data from these recommended districts were compared with data from the randomly selected districts on the assumption that programs recognized as exceptional would differ from the randomly selected sample. Of the 50 questionnaires mailed to school districts recommended by State Directors of Programs for the Gifted, 76% (38) were returned. The district consultant/coordinator for gifted education completed 42.1% (16) of the questionnaires. Two each were completed by superin- tendents and building principals. One was completed by a curriculum director, and one participant did not provide this information. Other professional positions were held by 42.1% (16) of the respondents. These included the following: special education coordinator, director of exceptional education, director of instruction, teacher of the 64 gifted, project specialist, elementary coordinator, director--staff and curriculum development, director--pupi1 personnel services, and extended learning program coordinator. The majority of the respondents (47.4%) were from the South Atlantic division. The West North Central division was represented by 23.7%, the Mountain and East North Central divisions by 10.5% each, the West South Central division by 5.3%, and the New England division by 2.6%. The Pacific, East South Central, and Middle Atlantic divisions were not represented in this sample. Of the 38 participants, 36.8% (14) were in states that mandate gifted education and 63.2% (24) were in states that do not mandate gifted education. Gifted students were reported to be specifically identified for programming in 97.4% (37) of the 38 school districts. It was felt by 55.3% (21) of the respondents that most classroom teachers were unable to describe the specific curriculum modifications being made for gifted students. In comparison, 44.7% (17) of the respond- ents indicated that most classroom teachers were able to describe the specific curriculum modifications being made for gifted students. A specific budget for gifted education was reported by 86.8% (33) of the districts. About 13% (5) reported no specific budget for gifted education. These characteristics are similar to those found in the randomly selected school districts. The most popular program model among this group of respondents was advanced placement/acceleration. This category was selected by 68.4% (26) of the participants. Magnet schools and Saturday seminars 65 seemed to be the least popular. The following program models were mentioned in addition to those designated by the researcher: summer schools, Future Problem Solving, independent study, Olympics of the Mind, after-school programs, curriculum compacting, College for Kids, mentorships, center programs, self-contained class, pull-out programs for various time durations, modification of regular curriculum, and col- lege tuition paid for junior and senior high school students when appropriate classes aren't available as part of the regular curriculum. Although pull-out programs for two hours or less were not found as frequently in the recommended districts, the remainder of the pro- gram models were similar to those found in the randomly selected districts. The district consultant/coordinator for gifted education was found to have the most supervisory responsibility for the gifted program. This was indicated by 57.9% (22) of the respondents. The building principal and the gifted program teacher were found to share responsibility for the program. The program coordinator and assistant principal were also reported by some participants as having the most supervisory responsibility for the gifted program. Supervisory responsibility for the gifted program was handled similarly in the randomly selected districts. Gifted program evaluation was reported to be carried on sys- tematically throughout the year by 63.2% (24) of the 38 respondents. Evaluation did not occur throughout the year in 34.2% (13) of the reporting districts. Gifted programs were reported to be evaluated only at the end of the year by 36.8% (14) of the respondents. This 66 was not the case in 57.9% (22) of the reporting districts. A higher rate of systematic evaluation throughout the school year was found in the recommended districts. Approximately half the respondents reported that the district's gifted program evaluation was designed before the program was imple- mented. A program evaluation based on predetermined goals or objec- tives was reported by 89.5% (34) of the respondents. About 8% (3) of the participants responded negatively to this item, and one offered no response. These procedures were similar to those found in the randomly selected districts. Of the 38 participants, 57.9% (22) indicated that the cost of evaluating the gifted program was part of the total gifted program budget. In comparison, 34.2% (13) indicated that the gifted program budget did not include the cost of evaluation, and 7.9% (3) of the participants offered no response. One respondent stated that there was no gifted program budget. Participants were asked to specify the percentage of the gifted program budget that is spent on evalua- tion. Of the 38 participants, 86.8% (33) reported spending 0-5% on evaluation. One respondent reported spending 12-15% on evaluation, and 10.5% (4) did not respond to this item. These budget practices were similar to those reported in the randomly selected districts. Parents were reported to have the most influence on funding by 26.7% (8) of the 30 who responded. Outside evaluators were found to have the least influence in this area. In contrast, the state department of education was found to have the most influence on fund- ing in the randomly selected districts. 67 Approximately half the respondents indicated that those responsible for conducting the evaluation of the gifted program were trained as program evaluators. Specific guidelines were reported to be provided to those involved in the evaluation by 71.1% (27) of the respondents. About 26% (10) responded negatively to this item, and one participant did not respond. A higher incidence of trained pro- gram evaluators as well as specific guidelines provided to those involved in the evaluation was found in the recommended districts. The district consultant/coordinator was reported to have the most influence on personnel changes by 41.4% (12) of the 29 who responded. The changes considered were number of personnel, roles of personnel, and preparation of personnel. Students had the least influence in this area. About 21% (8) of the participants did not indicate whose evaluations were most influential in changing the gifted program cur- riculum. Gifted program teachers were reported to have the most influence on the gifted program's curriculum by 43.3% (13) of the 30 who responded. Outside evaluators and the school board of education were found to have the least effect on the curriculum. About 21% (8) of the participants did not indicate whose evalua- tions were most influential in causing changes in the identification of the gifted. The district consultant/coordinator was reported to have the most influence on student identification by 36.7% (11) of the 30 who responded. Students and outside evaluators had the least influ- ence. 68 About 21% (8) of the participants did not indicate whose evaluations had the greatest influence on student time spent in the program. The gifted program teacher was reported to have the most influence in this area by 36.7% (11) of the 30 participants who responded. About 33% (10) of the participants indicated that the district consultant/coordinator had the greatest influence on student time spent in the gifted program. The superintendent and outside evaluators were found to have the least effect on this component. Influences in recommended districts on personnel, curriculum, identification of the gifted, and student time spent in the gifted program were similar to those found in the randomly selected dis- tricts. There was, however, a higher rate of response to these items from the recommended districts. Participants were asked to specify the measures used to evalu- ate the progress of students in the gifted program. All 38 partici- pants indicated at least one method of evaluation. Those designated by the researcher were the following: intelligence tests, mastery of behavioral objectives, teacher—made tests, creative products, stand- ardized achievement tests, student self-evaluation, and teacher observation. It was possible for participants to indicate more than one method of evaluating student progress. Relative frequency was based on the number of responses in a given category compared with 38 respondents. The measures most often used were creative products, student self-evaluation, and teacher observation. The frequency of responses is presented in Table 14. 69 Table l4.--Methods of evaluating students in gifted programs in school districts recommended by State Directors of Programs for the Gifted. Methods of Evaluating Absolute Relative Student Progress Frequency Frequency (%) Intelligence tests 11 28.9 Mastery of behavioral objectives 18 47.4 Teacher-made tests 17 44.4 Creative products 33 86.8 Standardized achievement tests 23 60.5 Student self-evaluation 30 78.9 Teacher observation 37 97.4 Other 8 21.1 Participants were asked to list other measures used to evaluate students' progress in the gifted program. These included the following: parent and peer reactions teacher-student conferences for evaluation and goal setting or differentiated curriculum contracts parent evaluation of product and progress creativity tests parent observations student attitude toward school, self, subject area teacher attitude toward gifted students and differentiated instruction Participants were asked to indicate the persons who were directly informed of the program evaluation results and the means which were used to convey the information. Written reports were sub- mitted to the state department of education (60.5%), building princi- pals (52.6%), gifted program teachers (44.7%), district consultant/ 7O coordinator (42.1%), superintendent (42.1%), school board of educa- tion (34.2%), and the local news media (26.3%). Of the 38 partici- pants, 47.4% (18) indicated that students in the gifted program received oral reports, and 34.2% (13) indicated that other teachers received oral reports. Both oral and written reports were submitted to the state department of education by 34.2% (13) of the respondents. Reports were submitted to parents of the gifted students in 81.6% (31) of the reporting districts: 34.2% oral, 31.6% written, and 15.8% oral and written. No report was submitted to all parents in the school district in 50% (19) of the reporting districts. Results of the gifted program evaluation were reported simi- larly in the recommended districts and the randomly selected districts. A greater frequency of written reports, however, was submitted to the state department of education by the recommended districts. In addi- tion, students were more likely to receive an oral report of the evaluation results in the recommended districts. CHAPTER V DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS This chapter presents a discussion of the findings in this study, implications of the study, and recommendations for further research. Discussion of the Findings This study assessed the current status of gifted program evaluation. The participants in this study included 192 randomly selected school districts having gifted programs and 38 districts recommended by State Directors of Programs for the Gifted. Analysis of the data was based on the total sample, the legal status of gifted education in the states, and the geographical divisions of the United States. In addition to completing the items on the questionnaire, many respondents provided further insight into their programs through written comments and/or printed material. 1 Most of those who responded were gifted program consultants/ coordinators at the district level. They were reported to have the most supervisory responsibility for the gifted program. Changes in personnel and the identification of gifted students were affected most by the district consultant/coordinator. Although gifted students were specifically identified for programming in almost all the participating districts, it was felt 71 72 that many classroom teachers were unable to describe the specific curriculum modifications being made for these students. Although this may be attributed to lack of interest in some cases, many times it is simply a lack of time that prevents classroom teachers from becoming more aware of and involved in the programs being offered outside their own classrooms. Perhaps school districts should offer more inservice dealing with the specific needs of gifted students and how they can be addressed both in and outside the classroom. It may be that classroom teachers should be included in the initial planning of the gifted program. Allowing time for regular communication between the classroom teacher and the gifted program teacher should also be considered. A variety of gifted programs have been implemented throughout the country. The most popular of these were pull-out programs for two hours or less a week and advanced placement/acceleration. The latter was primarily found at the secondary level. There has been great debate on the issue of acceleration, particularly at the elemen- tary level, in relation to social adjustment. Very few magnet schools for the gifted were found in the districts that participated in this study. Evaluation does not seem to be a priority in gifted programs as approximately half the programs in this study were not evaluated throughout the year. Many evaluations conducted at the end of the year were done to comply with state laws or regulations. Perhaps it is felt that anything above and beyond the standard curriculum offered to gifted students is better and does not require 73 evaluation. It may be that gifted program teachers are so enthusias- tic and excited about the content of their programs that they do not have or take the time to see if what they are doing is making a dif- ference. It is simply assumed that any special program makes a difference. Gifted programs are generally limited to a specific budget. Is it possible that the enthusiasm for initiating and maintaining the program prevents expenditures for evaluation? Oftentimes, gifted program evaluation is not even considered until it is requested or required by the school board or the state department of education. If meaningful program changes are to be made, however, continuous evaluation throughout the year as well as at the end of the school year is essential. Although the literature emphasized the importance of design- ing the evaluation before implementing the gifted program, this only occurred in approximately half the participating districts. It was reported, however, that most program evaluations were based on pre- determined goals or objectives. It would seem to be quite efficient, then, to determine the goals or objectives and design the evaluation of the attainment of those goals or objectives concurrently before the program's implementation. Many of those involved in evaluating gifted programs had not been trained as program evaluators, nor had they been given specific guidelines concerning the evaluation process. It may be that quali- fied program evaluators are difficult to find and that the cost to the district would be prohibitive. Perhaps other alternatives should 74 be explored. University personnel could be contracted for consulting services. A district consultant/coordinator from another district might be willing to conduct the evaluation. Perhaps an inservice workshop could be offered to a group of professional personnel in the district so that they could conduct an adequate evaluation. The gifted program components addressed in this study were funding, personnel, curriculum, identification of the gifted, and student time spent in the gifted program. Approximately one-third of the participants had not evaluated these components. In some cases, this was due to the program's newness. In others, no changes had been made based on evaluation. Funding seems to be a major problem for gifted programs. Many have been affected by the reduction or elimination of federal, state, or local funds. Programs that were initiated with federal or state funds often fell by the wayside when these resources were reduced or withdrawn unless the local district was able to finance the program and was committed to its existence. Data in this study seemed to indicate that generally the state department of education had the most influence on changes in funding for gifted programs. This was not the case in the East North Central division of the United States, where poor economic conditions were the probable cause of reduced funding for education to the local districts. Although a specific budget for gifted education was reported by most participants, less than half indicated that the cost of evalu- ation was included in the total program budget. Almost all respondents indicated that the cost of evaluation comprised less than 5% of the 75 gifted program budget. Given a limited amount of money to support the gifted program, educators may feel it necessary to use these funds for qualified personnel and materials. Evaluation is evidently not impor- tant enough to require funding. If a school district spends thousands of dollars implementing a gifted program--including the hiring of personnel, identification of gifted students, development of a cur- riculum, and purchase of materials--would it not seem reasonable to appropriate funding for program evaluation? Would it not be efficient and economically sound to determine if the resources allocated are being used effectively? Evaluation in some districts focused only on personnel. Teacher evaluation has been standard procedure in all areas of educa- tion. Can it be assumed that the quality of the teacher determines the adequacy of the program? In other districts, evaluation has focused primarily on the curriculum. The data in this study indicated that changes in the curriculum were influenced the most by the gifted program teacher. Changes prompted by the teacher's perception of the program's strengths and weaknesses may be based on student input, usually in the form of a questionnaire. All too often this has simply been a matter of asking students what they liked and did not like about the program. Although student input is essential, perhaps it should be more sub- stantive. Students could be involved in planning the curriculum in terms of its purposes and intended effects. Their contribution would then be more useful in assessing the need for changes. 76 Data collected for this study indicated that students had almost no effect on any of the gifted program components. Of par- ticular concern is their lack of influence on the curriculum and on student time spent in the gifted program. Should gifted students not be encouraged, or at least permitted, to pursue areas of study that are of particular interest to them? Is it essential that every aspect of education be prescribed by an educator? It would seem that the most meaningful curriculum is one that is shaped by the student and teacher together. It also seems reasonable for students to have some control over their time spent in the gifted program. Students should be given the opportunity to make choices and decisions concerning the manage- ment of their time. It is certainly possible that the gifted program will not always be able to accommodate the various needs and inter- ests of all the students involved. There may be times when students would prefer to remain in their regular classroom for a variety of reasons. With guidance from parents and teachers, students can learn to make appropriate decisions concerning the expenditure of their time. Of the 192 randomly selected school districts, approximately 40% were in states with mandated gifted education and 60% were in states with nonmandated gifted education. Mandated gifted programs do not imply mandated quality program evaluation. Rather, it was found that nonmandated districts were more likely to design the program evaluation before the program's implementation and to carry on systematic evaluation throughout the year. A higher incidence of 77 trained program evaluators and of a program evaluation based on predetermined goals or objectives was found in nonmandated districts. Having the cost of evaluation included in the total gifted program budget was also more likely in nonmandated districts. The state department of education seemed to influence all aspects of the gifted program in mandated districts. There seemed to be some feeling of resentment on the part of those responsible for gifted programs in these districts. Does mandated gifted education imply that the state should control student identification, curricu- lum, and student time spent in the gifted program? Is it assumed that the state is better able to make these determinations than the local school district? In some cases, gifted education has been mandated without funding from the state. Should local districts be expected to accommodate the mandates of the state, or should they be permitted to develop their own programs? Various methods were used to evaluate student progress in the gifted program. Teacher observation and creative products were the measures most often used, and intelligence tests were least often used. Although evaluating creative products may be rather subjec- tive, it is probably the most appropriate measure of a gifted student's achievement (Renzulli, 1980). Although intelligence tests are often used to identify gifted children, 41 respondents indicated their use for evaluating student progress in the gifted program. Is it possible that changes in intelligence are expected as a result of participating in a gifted program? 78 In spite of the fact that the behavioral-objectives model is generally not seen as suitable for evaluating the progress of gifted students, this practice was found to be more prevalent in mandated districts than in nonmandated districts. A number of participants expressed concern about the difficulty of evaluating higher-level thinking skills and creative products using this method. Perhaps those involved in mandating gifted education should consider other alternatives for evaluating student progress. In comparing the randomly selected districts with those recom- mended by State Directors of Programs for the Gifted, many similari- ties were found. There appears to be little difference between the randomly selected districts and those recommended as having an excep- tional evaluation component included in the gifted program. The data seemed to indicate the following differences: 1. A higher rate of systematic evaluation throughout the year was found in the recommended districts. 2. Parents were reported to have more influence than the state department of education on funding in the recommended districts. 3. A higher incidence of trained program evaluators as well as specific guidelines provided to those involved in the evaluation was found in the recommended districts. It is interesting that many of the recommended districts did not rely on the state for funding. Rather, parents were more influ- ential in this area. Perhaps this involved appearances at school board meetings or fund-raising projects. Is it possible that this approach offers the program more freedom? 79 Implications of the Study Evaluation must be an integral part of program develOpment. Gifted programs should be evaluated throughout the year so that neces- sary modifications can be addressed. Evaluation should also occur at the year's end to determine total results and to make adjustments in planning for the following year. Gifted program evaluation procedures should be designed before the program is implemented and should be based on predetermined goals and objectives. District personnel will need to determine who will conduct the evaluation. A number of possibilities exist and should be explored before a decision is made. Gifted programs are created to meet the needs of particular students. Based on what has been reported in this study, students are offered almost no opportunity to react to the programs they are involved in. Their input is neither sought nor considered. If stu- dents are to become self-directed, independent adults, they must be encouraged to explore alternatives and formulate decisions. Gifted students are certainly capable of participating in determining their areas of study and time spent in the program. It is unfortunate that those responsible for gifted programs have failed to recognize the value of students in shaping gifted programs. Evaluation of gifted programs in mandated districts was less thorough than that in nonmandated districts. Within the limitations of this study, no advantages were found for mandating gifted educa- tion. One would think that mandated programs would have a more sophisticated evaluation model. This was not the case in the districts 80 surveyed in this study. Factors considered to be important in the evaluation of gifted programs were found more frequently in non- mandated than in mandated districts. Most educators agree that it is essential to provide approp- riate educational programs for all students. Mandating these programs, complete with specific guidelines and paperwork with little room for flexibility for the local district, is not the answer. Programs that are created and grow from the grass roots generally meet with greater success in that they are more apt to suit local people and situations rather than mandates from the state. The likelihood of a gifted program being eliminated is greatly reduced when parents have some ownership and involvement in it. All too often, gifted programs simply exist in mandated states. Gifted program teachers and district consultants/coordinators are occupied with reams of paperwork and are left with little time to plan for and work with students and teachers. A feeling of resentment on the part of some of the respondents in mandated states was apparent. Mandating an appropriate education for every child with general guidelines is sufficient. The state need not insult the local education specialists and administration by dictat- ing program details. Progress of students in the gifted program must be monitored. Although the behavioral-objectives model is recognized as too limiting 'U: evaluate gifted students adequately, this model is favored more in mandated states. Perhaps it appears to be the simplest measure of stu- dent success, however inaccurate that measure may be. 81 Creative products provide a more accurate assessment of achievement. Criteria should be developed to evaluate creative products. Student self-evaluation could also become a part of this total assessment. Recommendations for Further Research The following recommendations for further research are sug- gested: 1. Because this researcher's data did not support mandated gifted education, it is recommended that the intricacies of gifted programs in states mandating gifted education be studied. 2. A study comparing student attitudes toward the gifted program in mandated and nonmandated districts could be enlightening. 3. Advanced placement/acceleration was found primarily at the secondary level. This model could be examined at the elementary and middle school levels. 4. Differences in state laws mandating gifted education could be examined. 5. Since it was felt that many classroom teachers were unaware of what was being done for gifted children, a study concern- ing inservice for teachers might be beneficial. 6. Perhaps it would be possible to compare programs in which students' opinions are valued with those in which they are ignored. APPENDICES 82 APPENDIX A LIST OF STATE DIRECTORS OF PROGRAMS FOR THE GIFTED 83 84 State Directors of Programs for the Gifted--January 7, 1982 ALABAMA Marsha Johnson State Consultant for Gifted Programs Alabama State Department of Education 868 State Office Building Montgomery, AL 36130 (205) 832-3230 ALASKA Diane Le Resche, Consultant Office of Exceptional Children Pouch F State Department of Education Juneau, AK 99811 (907) 465-2970 AMERICAN SAMOA Lui Tuitele, Consultant Gifted/Talented Education Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799 Deputy's #-Telea Falealiz 011-684-633-5237 (Overseas Operator) ARIZONA Lola P. Gross, State Coordinator State Coordinator Education for Gifted/Talented Division of Curriculum and Instruction 1535 West Jefferson Phoenix, AZ 85007 (602) 255-5008/9 ARKANSAS Clifford D. Curl Consultant, Gifted/Talented Special Education Section Division of Instructional Services Arch Ford Education Building Little Rock. AR 72201 (501) 371-2161 W Clinor S. McKinney Program Manager/Gifted Education 721 Capitol Mall Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 322-5954 Jack Mosier Consultant, Gifted/Talented 721 Capitol Mall Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 322-5954 CALIFORNIA (Cont'd) Paul Plowman Consultant, Gifted/Talented 721 Capitol Mall Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 322-5954 COLORADO Gerald Villars, State Coordinator Gifted/Talented Student Programs Colorado Department of Education 201 East Colfax Denver, CO 80203 (303) 866-5721 CONNECTICUT William G. Vassar Consultant, Gifted/Talented State Department of Education P.O. Box 2219 Hartford, CT 06115 (203) 566-3695 w Donald Ames, State Supervisor Programs for Exceptional Children State Department of Public Instruction Townsend Building Dover. DE 19901 (302) 736-4667 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Phyllis Hines Coordinator, Gifted Education Room 311-A Seaton Elementary School 10th 8 Rhone Island Ave. N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 673-7054 110mm Shirley Perkins Consultant, Gifted Education Bureau of Education for Exceptional Children Knott Building Tallahassee, FL 32301 (904) 488-1106 GEORGIA Dr. Arthur E. Bilyeu Attn.: Alan White, Acting Coordinator Programs for the Gifted Department of Education State Office Building Atlanta, GA 30334 (404) 656-2425 Mary Lillian White, Consultant Programs for the Gifted Department of Education State Office Building Atlanta, GA 30334 (404) 656-2425 Joyce E. Gay, Consu1tant Programs for the Gifted Department of Education State Office Building Atlanta, GA 30334 (404) 656-2425 GUAM Victoria T. Harper Associate Superintendent Special Education Department of Education P.O. Box DE Agana, GU 96910 Overseas Operator - 011+44+671+Loca1 Number: 472-8906; 472-8703; 472-9082; 472-9352 HAWAII Pearl Ching, Educational Specialist Gifted/Talented Office of Instructional Services Department of Education #805 1270 Queen Emma Street Honolulu, HI 96813 (808) 548-6414 IDAHO Genelle Christensen Coordinator, Gifted/Talented State Department of Education Len 8. Jordan Building 650 West State Boise, ID 83720 (208) 334-3940 85 ILLINOIS Wilma Lund Gifted Education Coordinator Educational Innovation a Support Section State Department of Education 100 North First Street Springfield, IL 62777 (217) 782-3810 INDIANA Arlene Hunger, Consultant Gifted/Talented Education Department of Public Instruction 229 State House Indianapolis, IN 46204 (317) 927-0111 IOWA Dr. Leland Walf Consultant, Gifted and Talented Education Grimes State Office Building East 14th & Grand Avenue Des Moines, IA 50319 (515) 281-3198 M Woody Houseman Education Program Specialist-Gifted 120 East 10th Topeka, KS 66612 (913) 296-3866 W Susan Leib, Program Manager Gifted Education 1831 Capitol Plaza Tower Frankfort, KY 40601 (502) 564-2106 Low Ruth Castille, Section Chief Gifted/Talented Programs State Department of Education P.O. Box 44064 Baton Rouge, LA 70804 (504) 342-3636 Dean Frost, Supervisor Talented Programs State Department of Education P.O. Box 44064 Baton Rouge, LA 70804 (504) 342-3636 MAINE Patricia O'Connell, Coordinator Gifted/Talented State House Station #23 Augusta, ME 04333 (207) 289-3451 MARYLAND Janice Wickless Senior Staff Specialist Gifted/Talented Education State Department of Education 200 W. Baltimore Street Baltimore, MD 21201 (301) 659-2312 Lynn Cole Specialist, Gifted/Talented State Department of Education 200 W. Baltimore Street Baltimore, MD 21201 (301) 659-2313 Karen Davidson Specialist, Gifted/Talented State Department of Education 200 W. Baltimore Street Baltimore, MD 21201 (301) 659-2314 MASSACHUSETTS Roselyn Frank, Director Programs for Gifted/Talented Massachusetts Department of Education Bureau of Curriculum Services 31 St. James Avenue Boston, MA 02116 (617) 727-5750 MICHIGAN Nancy Mincemoyer, Specialist Gifted-Talented Education Michigan Department of Education P.O. Box 30008 Lansing, MI 48909 (517) 373-8793 MINNESOTA Lorraine Hertz Program Specialist in Gifted Education 641 Capitol Square St. Paul, MN 55101 (612) 296-4072 86 MISSISSIPPI Betty Walker Consultant, Gifted/Talented Special Education Section P.O. Box 771 Jackson, MS 39205 (601) 354-6950 MISSOURI Robert Roach, Director Gifted/Alternative Programs State Department Elementary/Secondary Education P.0. Box 480 Jefferson City, MO 65102 (314) 751-2453 MONTANA Nancy Lukenbill Specialist, Gifted/Talented Office of Public Instruction Helena, MT 59620 (406) 449-5660 NEBRASKA Sheila Brown Programs for the Gifted 301 Centennial Mall South Lincoln, NE 68509 (402) 471-2446 1mm. Jane Early, Consultant Nevada Department of Education 400 West King Street Carson City, NV 89710 (702) 885-3140 NEW HAMPSHIRE Trina Osher Consultant, Special Education State Department of Education 105 Loudon Road Concord, NH 03301 (603) 271-3741 NEW JERSEY Ted Gourley Consultant, Gifted/Talented State Department of Education 225 West State Street Trenton, NJ 08625 (609) 292-8412 NEW MEXICO Ronald Rubenzer Coordinator, Gifted Education Special Education Division State Department of Education State Education Building Santa Fe, NM 87503 (505) 827-2793 NEW YORK David Irvine Specialist, Gifted Education State Education Department Room 367 EBA Albany, NY 12234 (518) 474-5966 James E. Shea Specialist, Gifted Education State Education Department Room 367 EBA Albany, NY 12234 (518) 474-5966 NORTH CAROLINA Gail Smith, Chief Consultant Gifted Education Division of Exceptional Children State Department of Public Instruction Raleigh, NC 27611 (919) 733-3004 Ruby Murchison Consultant, Gifted Education Region IV Education Center P.O. Box 786 Carthage, NC 28327 (919) 947-5871 NORTH DAKOTA La Donna Whitmore Coordinator, Gifted/Talented Department of Public Instruction State Capitol Bismarck, ND 58505 (701) 224-2652 OHIO George Fichter, Consultant Programs for Gifted/Talented Division of Special Education 933 High Street Worthington, OH 43085 (614) 466-2650 87 OKLAHOMA Dorothy Dodd, Administrator Gifted/Talented Section State Department of Education 2500 N. Lincoln Boulevard Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405) 521-4287 OREGON Robert J. Siewert Gifted/Talented Specialist 700 Pringle Parkway SE Salem, OR 97219 (503) 378-8460 PENNSYLVANIA Jean Farr, Coordinator Gifted/Talented Programs Penn-STAR 1013 West Ninth Avenue King of Prussia, PA 19406 (215) 265-3706 PUERTO RICO Consultant, Gifted Office of External Resources Department of Education Hato Rey, PR 00924 (809) 765-1475 RHODE ISLAND Judy Edsal, Project Manager School/Community Partnership 235 Promade Avenue Providence, RI 02908 (401) 277-2825 SOUTH CAROLINA Ann Elam, Coordinator Programs for the Gifted 1420 Senate Street Columbia, SC 29210 (803) 758-2652 SOUTH DAKOTA Robert R. Giegle, Program Specialist Gifted/Talented Programs Special Education Education Richard F. Kneip Building Pierre, SD 57501 (605) 773-3678 TENNESSEE Barbara Russell Coordinator, Gifted/Talented 132-A Cordell Hull Building Nashville, TN 37219 (615) 741-3659 TEXAS Ann G. Shaw, Program Director Gifted/Talented Education Texas Education Agency 201 East 11th Street Austin, TX 78701 (512) 475-6582 Evelyn L. Hiatt, Chief Consultant Gifted/Talented Education Texas Educational Agency 201 East 11th Street Austin, TX 78701 (512) 475-6582 TRUST TERRITORY Melody Actouka, Coordinator for Bilingual Education/Equity Programs Trust Territory Office of Education Office of the High Commissioner Saipan, CM 96950 (Overseas Operator l60+67l+Saipan 9312, 9428, or 9319) UTAH Jewell Bindrup, Consultant Gifted/Talented Education State Board of Education 250 East 5th, South Salt Lake City. UT 84111 (801) 533-6040 VERMONT James G. Lengel Chief, Elementary Curriculum State Department of Education Montpelier, VT 05602 (802) 828-3141 VIRGIN ISLANDS State Director of Special Education Department of Education Box 630, Charlotte Amalie St. Thomas, VI 00801 (809) 774-0100, ext. 271 BE! VIRGINIA Dr. John D. Booth Associate Director Special Programs for Gifted/Talented Division of Special Education State Department of Education P.O. Box 60 Ninth Street Office Building 9th 3 Grace Streets Richmond, VA 23216 (804) 225-2070 WASHINGTON Pupil Personnel Services/Gifted Education ESD #113 601 McPhee Road, SW Olympia, WA 98502 (206) 754-2933 Mary Henri Fisher Consultant, Gifted Education 7510 Armstrong Street, SW FGll Tumwater, WA 98504 (206) 753-6733 WEST VIRGINIA Barbara Jones, Coordinator Programs for the Gifted Capitol Complex 337 8 Charleston, WV 25305 (304) 348-7010 WISCONSIN Tom Diener, Supervisor Gifted/Talented Programs P.0. Box 7841 125 S. Webster Madison, WI 53707 (608) 266-3560 WYOMING Sue Holt, Coordinator Language Arts/Gifted/Talented Wyoming Department of Education Hathaway Building Cheyenne, WY 82002 (307) 777-6238 APPENDIX B STATES MANDATING GIFTED EDUCATION AND COMPOSITION OF THE SAMPLE BY STATES 89 90 States Mandating Appropriate Education for Gifted Children Alabama Nevada Alaska New Jersey Arizona New Mexico California North Carolina Florida Oklahoma Idaho Pennsylvania Kansas South Dakota Louisiana Virginia West Virginia 91 Table B-1.--Composition of sample by state. State % Returned % of Sample Alabama 83.3 2.6 Alaska 33.3 .5 Arizona 80.0 2.1 Arkansas 50.0 .5 California 68.4 6.8 Colorado 50.0 .5 Connecticut 57.1 2.1 Delaware 100.0 1.0 Florida 33.3 .5 Georgia 88.8 4.2 Hawaii 100.0 1.0 Idaho 50.0 .5 Illinois 56.0 7.3 Indiana 100.0 1.0 Iowa 66.6 1.0 Kansas 66.6 5.2 Kentucky 66.6 1.0 Louisiana 33.3 .5 Maryland 100.0 1.0 Massachusetts 42.8 1.6 Maine 0.0 0.0 Michigan 71.4 2.6 Minnesota 62.5 2.6 Mississippi 50.0 1.6 Missouri 100.0 2.6 Montana 66.6 1.0 Nebraska 66.6 1.0 Nevada 100.0 1.0 New Hampshire 33.3 .5 New Jersey 75.0 1.6 Table B-l.--Continued. 92 State % Returned % Sample New Mexico 50.0 1.0 New York 52.0 6.8 North Carolina 57.1 2.1 North Dakota 100.0 1.0 Ohio 100.0 3.1 Oklahoma 48.0 6.3 Oregon 50.0 1.0 Pennsylvania 60.0 7.8 Rhode Island 100.0 1.0 South Carolina 100.0 2.1 South Dakota 44.4 2.1 Tennessee 66.6 1.0 Texas 50.0 1.6 Utah 100.0 1.0 Vermont 50.0 .5 Virginia 42.8 1.6 Washington 0.0 0.0 West Virginia 0.0 0.0 Wisconsin 40.0 3.1 Wyoming 100.0 1.0 APPENDIX C QUESTIONNAIRE, COVER LETTER, AND FOLLOW-UP POSTCARD 93 94 DISTRICT INFORMATION State City (Town) School District Address K-12 Enrollment Gifted Program Enrollment Name of Respondee Position GIFTED EDUCATION PROGRAM INFORMATION Yes No 1. Is gifted education mandated in your state? Are gifted students specifically identified for programming in your district? 3. Do you feel that most classroom teachers are able to describe the specific curriculum modifications being made for gifted students? 4. Is there a specific budget for gifted education in your district? 5. Check the gifted program model or models which best describes what is offered in your school district. a. Pull-out 2 hours or less a week b. Pull-out 1 day or more a week c. Cluster groups within classrooms d. Advanced placement/acceleration e. Enrichment Triad Model f. Honors Programs 9. Magnet Schools h. Ability grouping i. Saturday Seminars j. Other (please describe) -- §--~ 95 Who has supervisory responsibility for the gifted program? (Rank the three I R} .22 highest with 1 = most supervisory responsibility) fit (3 ;a. , classroom teacher b. building principal If superintendent d. gifted program teacher .. ----- A. district consultant/ f. other (indicate position) coordinator _. non INFORMATION 5 your gifted program systematically evaluated throughout 'the year? ‘Is your gifted program evaluated only at the end of the school sthe program evaluation designed before the program was implemented Are specific guidelines given to all those involved in the {evaluat10n7 (Please enclose guidelines if available) iWhat percentage of the gifted program budget is spent on evaluation? (Check one) --.-.a. 0-5% b. 6-11% c. 12-15% 2 d.16-20% e. more than 20% fl A,” I 3 "mi-1": II,ST .1 . 41:: “3? F5!» 1' s-{I 96 ‘uWhOSe evaluations have caused changes in ' funding for the gifted program? _Whose evaluations have caused changes in ersonnel involved in the gifted program? Inumber of personnel, roles of personnel, preparation of personnel) ; Whose evaluations have caused changes in f:‘the curriculum for the gifted? X Whose evaluations have caused changes .1, in the identification of the gifted? 1 Whose evaluations have caused changes in -9 Student time spent in the gifted program? g :IPlease indicate who is directly informed of the program evaluation results and ,j' what means are used to convey the information. ' A B c no report oral report written report students in the gifted program .parents of the gifted all parents in the school district gifted program teachers other teachers building principals (district consultant/coordinator Superintendent school board of education State Department of Education local news media 97 gflown? the progress of students in the gifted program evaluated? (Check all that 1y intelligence tests mastery of behavioral objectives teacher-made tests creative products 3' a standardized achievement tests student self-evaluation teacher observation other (please list) EL¥PPRECIATE RECEIVING A COPY OF YOUR EVALUATION PROCEDURES. THANK YOU. 98 1‘605 Woodbrook Drive #122 East Lansing, Michigan #8823 Li am pursuing doctoral studies in gifted education at Michigan State University. . guy dissertation deals with current practices in the evaluation of gifted _ y Erograms and the impact of their results on program development. 13 would appreciate your completing the enclosed questionnaire which will require agpproximateiy fifteen minutes of your time. Please return it in the stamped addressed envelope as soon as possible. Your response is an integral part ' ' wa my study. .:11he results will be compiled and tabulated by state. School districts will «remain anonymous and no attempt will be made to evaluate any particular school ':or school district. i'll be glad to send you a summary of the results. rflinghenk you for participating in this study. Your input is most appreciated. ;. if you are interested In receiving a summary of the results, please complete "your name and address. 99 Mary Ann Traxler 1605 Noodbrook Dr. #122 East Lansing, MI 48823 Several weeks ago I sent you a questionnaire concerning the gifted program in your school district. Please take the time during your busy days to complete and return it in the envelope provided. Although school districts will remain anonymous, it is essential that I adequately represent each state. Your response, therefore, is an important part of my study. Thank you for your input. Mary Ann Traxler APPENDIX D GEOGRAPHICAL DIVISION OF STATES IN THE UNITED STATES AND COMPARISON OF GIFTED PROGRAM MODELS, BASED ON GEOGRAPHICAL DIVISIONS lOO lOl Geographical Division of States in the United States Pacific Washington Oregon California Alaska Hawaii West South Central Texas Oklahoma Arkansas Louisiana South Atlantic Florida Georgia South Carolina North Carolina West Virginia Virginia Maryland Delaware Source: The Condition of Education: A Statistical Report U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Research and Improvement Mountain Montana Idaho Wyoming Nevada Utah Colorado Arizona New Mexico East North Central Wisconsin Michigan Illinois Indiana Ohio Middle Atlantic West North Central North Dakota South Dakota Minnesota Nebraska Iowa Kansas Missouri East South Central New York New Jersey Pennsylvania National Center for Education Statistics 1982 Edition Mississippi Alabama Kentucky Tennessee New England Maine New Hampshire Vermont Massachusetts Rhode Island Connecticut 1(32 N.¢N N.me N.m¢ o.mN N..N _.Ne o.oe N.mm N.NN tmgco o N.N N.N o _.NN o N.N N.o N.NN Nancesmm Nautsuam N.Ne N.NN N.oN N.NN N.Ne «.mN N.NN o.mN e.¢¢ Nccaaoam NNeNNNN _.N N.N o o N.N_ N.m o o N.NN NNoONUN «mama: N.NN o.NN o.NN N.N_ N.¢N N.N_ o.op o.om N.NN NENENOLQ mecca: . . . . . . . . . Faces a NN N NN N we N N N cN N p. N NN N N, N NN onetu Newsguctcu . . . . . . . . . coeaatmpouua m «N N _N N an N NN m _m m NN N NN N om N No \Ncosuuapa vau=a>c< . . . . . . . . . NsaocNmN_u =_;N,z N N. F N. N N o NN e NN N NN o NN N Na p .N Na=0tm Laymapu . . . . . . . . . goes a ocos . . . . . . . . . JUUI a mmmp LO N NP o _N N NN N NN m .N N Fe N Na o NN N mm mesa; N Nao-p_=a ccmpmcm apnea—u< owuco—u< pmcucuu pacucou pmcucou Facucou :az a_uu.z guaom guaom NNNN auto: NNNN suaom «No: gate: emu: csaucaoz umceuaa Npmuoz eNtNOta .Aacmucon :Nv meonN>Nu —uowgqacmoom co tonne .mpovos socmoca toummm we comwcansoo