News Briefs

Gifted and Talented Provisions in the Every Student Succeeds Act

The latest reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESSA), previously known as the No Child Left Behind Act, has added new provisions that address gifted and talented students. First, ESSA specifically states that the term “all students” includes gifted and talented students. Second, states and school districts must disaggregate achievement data by student subgroup, which now includes students at each level of achievement, including the advanced level. Third, schools may now use Title I funds to identify and serve gifted and talented students. Fourth, states may use computer adaptive assessments as the format for state assessments, which are able to measure each student’s level of academic proficiency and growth using items above or below the student’s grade level. Finally, states must include information about how they will improve teachers’, principals’, or other school leaders’ skills in identifying gifted and talented students and providing instruction based on their learning needs. Title II funds not only may be used for professional development but also may be used to implement instructional practices that support the education of high ability students: early entrance to kindergarten, enrichment, acceleration, curriculum compacting activities, and dual or concurrent enrollment programs in secondary school. The Javits program, which currently provides funds for serving students who are traditionally underrepresented in gifted education programs such as children with disabilities, economically disadvantaged, minority, and English language learners, was retained in the new Act. The new provisions will go into effect in the 2016-2017 school year with applications for grants beginning July 1, 2016.

Differences in High School Graduation Rates Across States

Achieve (2015) analyzed 93 diploma options available across all 50 states and the District of Columbia for the class of 2014 to determine (a) differences in course requirements between diploma options, (b) which students complete which diplomas, (c) differences in expectations for different subgroups of students, (d) readiness for postsecondary educational opportunities, and (e) parental understanding between diploma types. They reported the following results:

Achieve recommends that all states require all students to take courses aligned to the CCR standards in mathematics and ELA. States should also communicate clearly to students and parents about diploma options, course requirements, and how the options align with postsecondary opportunities (Achieve, 2015). To read this report that details diploma options in various states, visit http://www.achieve.org/how-the-states-got-their-rates/

Effects of Personalized Learning

Funded by the Melinda & Bill Gates Foundation, RAND studied 32 public and charter schools that were a part of three foundation-supported initiatives to examine ways that they were personalizing learning and its effects on student achievement. According to practitioners in the field, personalized learning generally encompasses these characteristics: (a) “systems and approaches that accelerate and deepen student learning by tailoring instruction to each student’s individual needs, skills, and interests; (b) a variety of rich learning experiences that collectively prepare students for success in the college and career of their choice”; and (c) the teacher’s role in “designing and managing the learning environment, leading instruction, and providing students with expert guidance and support to help them take increasing ownership of their learning” (Pane, Steiner, Baird, & Hamilton, 2015, pp. 2-3). Design models for implementing personalized learning include one or more of the following strategies:

Using data from site visits, interviews with school administrators, teacher logs and surveys, student surveys, national surveys, and achievement data, the RAND Corporation reported these findings. First, students made gains in mathematics and reading performance relative to their peers after 2 years in a personalized learning school. Second, the adoption of personalized learning practices varied considerably. The most common implementation model incorporated extensions of current practices such as providing a separate time for individualized student support. Less common practices incorporated competency-based progressions, which were limited by teacher perceptions that they needed to emphasize grade-level content. Contextual factors that appeared to influence personalized learning implementation included the quality of professional development, support from administrators and colleagues, and school staffing. Third, these three features appeared to produce the largest achievement effects—student grouping driven by data and responsive to student needs; learning spaces that supported personalized learning such as flexible time periods, movable furniture, and laptop computers; and students’ discussion of data with their teachers. Finally, teachers’ and students’ survey results were different from a national sample about similar topics. Personalized learning teachers integrated more technology into their learning activities, used competency-based learning, and reported more staff collegiality and administrator support. Personalized learning students report more cognitive complexity in the ELA and math curriculum and student-centered instruction where they were allowed to make choices about their learning. Overall, researchers at the RAND Corporation concluded that personalized learning appears to have positive effects on student achievement. They will produce a more comprehensive report with additional details in 2016.

Learning-Science Agenda for Teacher-Preparation Programs

Founded in 2015, Deans for Impact is a national nonprofit organization representing leaders in educator preparation who are interested in using outcome data to drive improvement in teacher education programs. The organization recently released The Science of Learning (Deans for Impact, 2015) summarizing existing research from cognitive science about how students learn. The purpose of the report is to serve as a resource for educators who are interested in translating research-based principles into practices. The report is organized around the following questions:

For each question, cognitive principles are listed along with practical implications for the classroom. For example, one of the cognitive principles related to ways that students understand new ideas states, “Cognitive development does not progress through a fixed sequence of age-related stages. The mastery of new concepts happens in fits and starts” (Deans for Impact, 2015, p. 3). The related classroom implication suggests that the teacher should not keep content away from students because they view it as developmentally inappropriate (e.g., the student is not ready); rather, the teacher should ask, “Has the student mastered the prerequisites?” (Deans for Impact, 2015, p. 3).

Three member universities will be translating the principles into teacher-preparation curricula to examine improvements in the outcomes of their teacher-preparation programs: Relay Graduate School of Education, The Boston Teacher Residence, and Temple University’s College of Education. To learn more about the organization and to read the full report, visit http://deansforimpact.org/index.html