1 / 21

REACH EVALUATION

REACH EVALUATION. JUNE 2008. COMMITTEE MEMBERS. JUNE 2008. THIS PRESENTATION WILL INCLUDE. PROCESS TO ENSURE A COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATION. History of Gifted Education in Nashua, NH.

danno
Download Presentation

REACH EVALUATION

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. REACH EVALUATION JUNE 2008

  2. COMMITTEE MEMBERS JUNE 2008

  3. THIS PRESENTATION WILL INCLUDE

  4. PROCESS TO ENSURE A COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATION

  5. History of Gifted Education in Nashua, NH 1978 1988 1998 2008 ’81 ’84 ’85 ‘87-’88 ‘90 ‘91 ‘92 ‘93 ‘95 ’96 ‘99 2000 ‘01 ’02 ‘05 ‘07 Guidelines Committee established 200 students SAIL to REACH SAIL 3 GT Specialists REACH Specialist hired Part-time Coordinator hired Javits Grant denied 5 year review & *Self-Evaluation Published by NAGC Guidelines revised 5 GT Specialists & 5 Areas of Emphasis Identification model Aligned with Gardner’s Model Block grant expands program Javits Grant awarded 690 GT students CogAT ’08 new 52 Watch with Services 28 Governor's Summer Institute IAP’S

  6. CURRENT PERSONNEL SCHEMATIC 2007-2008

  7. REACH: Five Areas of Emphasis REACH is a program to identify gifted and talented students in K-12, and to determine their unique needs. Action Plan 2002

  8. GUIDE FOR EVALUATION REACH - Five Areas of Emphasis compared with corresponding NAGC Guiding Principles • PLUS three additional NAGC Criteria • Program Design • Program Administration and Management • Program Evaluation

  9. DIRECT STUDENT SERVICES CONCLUSION: REACH services, at all levels, meet some of the minimum NAGC standards. However, there is clearly more work to do.

  10. CURRICULUM CONCLUSION: In elementary grades, classes are scheduled on a regular basis to provide services that meet some of the NAGC minimum standards. At middle and high schools participation is self-selected. *Please Note: REACH is a program and not a formal curriculum.

  11. TEACHER SUPPORT CONCLUSION: The 5 REACH Specialists strive to provide teacher support. This effort is severely impacted by the REACH caseload. In this area REACH does not meet the minimum NAGC standards.

  12. STAFF DEVELOPMENT CONCLUSION: The REACH program does not meet the minimum NAGC standards in this area.

  13. PARENT/COMMUNITY SUPPORT CONCLUSION: Survey results show that REACH needs to work towards meeting the minimum standards in this area, as well as expanding the diversity of the Advisory Committee

  14. PROGRAM DESIGN

  15. PROGRAM DESIGN CONCLUSION: REACH does not meet the minimum standard in this area. There is a critical need for an alignment of goals, philosophy, program design, and identification to establish a model in line with current research.

  16. PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION CONCLUSION: There is a serious need for appropriate funding to provide personnel, resources, and materials. In addition, integration into the general program must be explored.

  17. SUMMARY OF EVALUATION

  18. REACH Document September 2003 with updates 2006 • Review of Reach 2008: • Philosophy unclear • No guiding principles • Definition is not clear • No measureable goals • No recommended service model • No formal collection of data • Facilitator role unrealistic • Volumes of paperwork • Nomination model restricts identification across all subgroups • Currently REACH is an identification Model • No measureable outcomes

  19. Most Important Outcomes • Evaluation Outcomes • Update program design to reflect current practices & NAGC Standards • Data Warehousing • Common goals for REACH • Periodic program evaluation • Need for increased funding/personnel • Improve equitability in services • Mentorships • Need for policies and procedures for acceleration • Influence in NSD reputation • REACH Outcomes • Multiple pathways to REACH • Increased direct services, teacher support, & parent support • Improved communication with ELL and Special Education for ID • Attention to changing demographics TASK FORCE

  20. It is the recommendation of the REACH Evaluation Committee that a task force be established to : • Define and align philosophy, guiding principles, goals, definition and services with current research • Extend the infrastructure to provide consistent and productive access to REACH services • Address issues of budgeting and staffing to allow for manageable case load; enhance and expand direct student services, teacher support, curriculum materials • Provide staff development for all Nashua Teachers and Administration • Establish data warehousing and ongoing review of data • Collaborate and communicate to assist with goal setting • Use of an outside evaluator, with expertise in program evaluation in gifted education, as recommended by NAGC. Recommendations

  21. The Nashua gifted education program needs to be aligned with NAGC standards. The Committee firmly believes that the existing program lacks a clear definition and philosophy, guiding principles, measureable goals, and services that are aligned with current research. SUMMARY STATEMENT

More Related