About Project 2 EXCEL Professor Karen B Rogers

About Project 2 EXCEL Professor Karen B. Rogers Project 2 EXCEL Director University of St. Thomas Minneapolis, Minnesota

It All Started With a Project… • Javits government grant for. 875 million dollars for 5 year study of twice exceptional primary school children: PROJECT 2 EXCEL • Includes 4 school districts (all serving gifted students in homogeneous, self-contained classrooms) with varying demographics so we can try to generalize across schools: District A – inner city gifted magnet school District B – small, blue collar 2 nd ring suburban district District C – moderate 2 nd ring middle class suburban district D – moderate 1 st ring blue collar/upper middle class suburban district

Goals of Project 2 EXCEL • Develop a systematic identification system for gifted learners with: – – Attention Deficit Disorder with/without hyperactivity (ADHD) Emotional Behavioral Disorder (EBD) Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) Specific Learning Disability (SLD) • Provide training for experimental teachers on twice exceptionality: – On-line certificate program (tuition free) 18 postgraduate credits in 2 X Education – In-service training on curricular specifics with built in, paid writing days (8 per year) – Yearly stipends for materials and resources – Biweekly classroom visits for observation, reflection

Goals of Project 2 EXCEL • Develop a “toolkit” of adaptations and accommodations applicable to gifted math and reading/language arts curriculum • Provide training and support to parents of twice exceptional experimental and control students • Disseminate what is learned about identification, programming, and parenting with general community via: – Curriculum toolkit for teachers – Website (www. stthomas. edu/project 2 excel ) – Parent training and resource manual

Project Implementation • Matched pairs of gifted children identified with the same forms (and degree) of exceptionality were randomly assigned to experimental and control classrooms • Matched pairs are pre- and post-tested on math and reading achievement levels, motivation to learn, and selfefficacy • Experimental students receive services for 5 years, starting with 4 th grade and controls continue with their current levels of services (for giftedness and special education) • Parents of experimental and control students receive four training sessions yearly on home-based strategies and resources on twice exceptionality

Goals of the Project: Were They Achieved? • Develop an identification protocol that systematically finds twice exceptional learners, grades K-8 – Established actual prevalence rates for four areas of twice exceptionality: GT/ASD, GT/ADHD, GT/SLD, GT/EBD

Goal One: Identification • Developed a tiered system for finding these learners – Used the system to first “find” the 2 X learners in the starting grades of the program – Used the system to then “find” the remaining 2 X learners grades 3 -8 in the same district (or school as in one district) – not completed at this point

Tiers for Identification Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 • Discrepancies among subtest or index scores on ability test used by a district, followed by • WISC if not initially done • District Checklists of specific disability category characteristics or behaviors provided to teachers of students “suspected” of presenting with a disability ADHD: Connor’s Rating Scales EBD: Behavior Assessment System for Children (BASC 2); Behavior & Emotional Rating Scales ASD: BASC-2; Autism diagnostic Interview – R (ADIR) SLD: Woodcock. Johnson Tests of Achievement ADHD: Connor’s Continuous Performance Test; Aschenbach Rating Scales EBD: Student Risk Screening Scale; Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire ASD: ADOS SLD: CTP; wr. AP (Writing Assessment)

Prevalence Results Summary • Approximately 14% of the 504 GT children in self-contained classes were 2 X. At 30 GTs per classroom, that means we could expect 4 of those GTs to present with a second exceptionality in each classroom. • GT/AD/HD learners represented 7% of the 504 GT children. At 30 GTs per classroom, we could expect 2 of those GTs to present with a AD/HD disorder in each classroom.

Prevalence Results Summary • EBD and SLD represented 3%, respectively, of the 504 GT children. At 30 GTs per classroom, we could expect 1 EBD and 1 SLD child in each 4 th grade classroom • GT/ASD learners represented 1% of the 504 GT children. At 30 GTs per classroom, we could expect 1 GT child with ASD in every third classroom.

Developmental Prevalence Results Summary • Except for the anomaly at 5 th grade, there appears to be a slight increase overall in 2 X presentation as gifted learners grow older • GT/AD/HD seems to be the most prevalent twice exceptionality to crop up over time. • Sixth grade appears to be a time when SLD may rear its ugly head. • EBD tends to remain constant and at a relatively high second as most prevalent twice exceptionality. • When looking across the grade levels, approximately 1 GT child in 5 in this study presented with some twice exceptionality.

Goal 2: Develop “Effective Teachers” • Professional development through inservices and writing/planning time • Professional development through online certification program • Provision of topical articles and resources directly to teachers in experimental classrooms

Has Goal 2 been achieved? • Teacher assessments of in-service and planning times (May, 2009 through May, 2010). Overall rating of time efficacy and effectiveness 6. 1 (out of 10) but huge discrepancy by district, with 3 districts reaching averages from 7 to 8. 7 and 1 district considerably lower –did not use their allotted writing and planning days) • Have identified a “model” of planning time during school year that worked successfully this year in two of the districts: collaborative group planning and child study

Has Goal 2 been achieved? • Teacher ratings of on-line course work rated overall as mean of 5. 9, with individual district ratings ranging from 1. 0 – 8. 0 (out of 10) • Districts which collaborated in study groups as follow up to course sessions had most positive reactions to this aspect of professional development • Biggest issue is that foundations needed to be laid in both GT and SPED before “hitting” 2 X education. That started this past summer. It was probably quite frustrating for our teachers “in the trenches”!

Has Goal 2 been achieved? • Teacher ratings of materials provided was mean of 5. 5 (out of 10) • Issue seems to have been finding the time to read what was provided, but resources provided, such as yoga balls, fidgets, lighting covers in classrooms very successful.

Goal 3: 2 X Toolkit Development • Developed toolkit of strategies and resources that adapt physical environment, social skills instruction, behavior modification, self-awareness to ensure that upscaled GT curriculum in math and language arts used in each district is sustained and that 2 X learners can thrive with it.

Was Goal 3 Achieved? • We have compiled the writing that was done in each district. The initial vision of this was that strategies would just be integrated within the curriculum itself, but as the year progressed, individual physical, behavioral, social accommodations were applied almost child by child. The population was discovered to be very idiosyncratic. Thus the toolkit has become a huge collective “box” from which teachers will take strategies, try them, put them back when they don’t work and try another.

Was Goal 3 Achieved? Let’s Look at How the Kids Have Fared: Teachers’ Perspectives Great Strides Some Progress No Change • Social interaction improvements (28/47) • Solid academic progress (38/47) • Good behavioral improvement (24/47) • Social interaction (10/47) • Social interaction (9/47) • Academic progress (6/47) • Behavioral improvement (12/47) • Academic progress (3/47) • Behavioral improvement (11/47)

Was Goal 3 Achieved? Student Results of Pre- and Post Assessments: ITBS Subject Area Pre-Assessment Mean Post-Assessment Mean Reading A: 74. 00 B: 82. 88 C: 81. 81 D: 81. 89 Whole: 80. 43 A: 76. 12 B: 84. 00 C: 86. 64 D: 83. 33 Whole: 83. 77 Mathematics A: 76. 58 B: 75. 29 C: 82. 59 D: 85. 89 Whole: 81. 15 A: 78. 11 B: 79. 23 C: 85. 27 D: 87. 33 Whole: 83. 67

Was Goal 3 Achieved? Pre/Post (CAIMI) Area of Motivation Dis Pre-Assessment Mean Post-Assessment Mean Reading A B C D W 35. 77 61. 77 51. 71 48. 22 49. 43 45. 62 51. 78 50. 38 49. 22 49. 46 Mathematics A B C D W 25. 62 41. 44 39. 82 51. 22 38. 78 40. 38 48. 00 35. 00 48. 89 45. 66 General A B C D W 27. 61 51. 44 44. 34 40. 00 41. 42 40. 07 48. 44 48. 80 46. 22 46. 68

Was Goal 3 Achieved? Pre/Post Harter Area Dis Pre=Assessment Mean Post-Assessment Mean Academic A B C D W 3. 06 3. 24 3. 13 2. 84 3. 09 3. 13 2. 81 3. 31 3. 28 3. 22 Social A B C D W 2. 71 2. 96 2. 84 2. 58 2. 80 2. 58 3. 06 2. 94 2. 91 Conduct A B C D W 3. 01 3. 15 3. 11 2. 75 3. 16 3. 24 3. 05

Goal 4: Provide Parent Training and Support • Develop first 8 parent facilitated group sessions to be presented directly to experimental and control parents of learners with 2 X in each district • Compiled list of resources and strategies in handbook each district can distribute to their parents of children with 2 X

Was Goal 4 achieved? • Three facilitated group sets of materials were provided and implemented in the districts: “Organization/Self-Management, ” “Perfectionism, ” and “Motivation” • Three of the districts implemented all three sets of materials to reasonably good parent response • One district has employed a parent session coordinator who will provide these sessions in the next year

Project Collaborators • University of St. Thomas (Special Education & Gifted Education Department – Karen Rogers Ann Ryan S. Nielsen-Gatti – Nancy Cohen Todd Busch T. Vandercook – Carol Malueg Barbara Stahl L. St. - Bresnahan • St. Paul Public Schools (Capitol Hill) – Renee Jensen Carol Aasen John Mayock – Grace Raymond Nancy Randall – Nicolle Hren Teynae Richardson – Lisa Larson Sharon Saunders

Project Collaborators • Inver Grove Heights – Erin Boltik – Jane Sansgaard – Jessica Swanson • Bloomington Schools – Richard Cash – Barbara Dullaghan – Tim Kaari – Martha Palm Kim Westra Betty Humphries Julie Donaldson Jodi Eschrich

Project Collaborators • South Washington County – Nancy Vague Colleen Heck – Kristine Mc. Donald Anne Bleyl – Kristine Matulka Theresa Campbell • Plus our 17 “control” teachers across the four districts!

District Reports • • South Washington County Bloomington Inver Grove Heights Capitol Hill

South Washington County Schools Gateway A School-Within-a-School For Highly / Profoundly Gifted Students Grades 3 -5

South Washington County Schools • • Suburban district located southeast of St. Paul 16, 650 Students 24% Racial and ethnic diversity 16% Students receive free/reduced lunch 15 Elementary Schools 4 Middle Schools 3 High Schools

Gateway • • • School-within-a-school Grades 3 -5 4 Classrooms 93 Students 31% Racial and ethnic diversity 4% Students receive free/reduced lunch

Why we got involved • Number of students with 2 e issues • Some 2 e students not finding success, • Looking for curriculum to benefit 2 e students • Opportunity to take classes

What we are doing • Identification • Teacher and Psychologist Awareness • Parent Education

Comments from staff…. . “As a district we are developing team relationships and curriculum for the students to best meet their needs. ” -Jane Moechnig, special education teacher “The partnership between special education and the Gateway teachers has been the most beneficial aspect of the project. ” -Colleen Heck, Grade 4 Teacher in the Gateway program

Comments from staff…. . My background is in special education. Looking back, I now realize we had twice exceptional students in our program. We just didn’t realize it or call it that. As a principal, this awareness has allowed me to support staff with resources/staff development that assists them in the classroom to effectively meet the unique varied needs of these wonderful children. -Molly Roeske, Principal-Bailey Elementary

To Sum It All Up • We have made tremendous progress in a single school year, with trying: (1) to find these children who are “dually blessed”, (2) to meet the academic, social, and behavioral needs of these children, (3) to support the teachers who are working with these children, and (4) to support the parents of these children.

Dimensions Academy • Students in grades 4 -8 • Highly / profoundly gifted • Increased number of students who struggle with executive functioning issues

Students • Seven “experimental” students – 4 th grade • 4 boys – 5 th grade • 1 boy • 2 girls • Most identified with reduced – Processing speed – Working memory

Teachers • Two teachers in two mutli-aged (4/5) classroom • Extensive reading and study on executive functioning issues • Utilizing strategies to assist in developing executive functioning skills

Students Gains on District Standardized Assessment (NWEA) • 4 th grade – SF: • 30 pt gain in reading (expected 2 -10) • 18 pt gain in math (expected 5 -13) – ZL: • 16 pt gain in reading (expected 0 -8) • 9 pt gain in math (expected 4 -12) – GW: • 19 pt gain in reading (expected 0 -8) • 5 pt gain in math (expected 3 -11) – WT: • 11 pt gain in reading (expected 1 -9) • 9 pt gain in math (expected 4 -12)

Students Gains on District Standardized Assessment (NWEA) • 5 th grade – LA: • 7 pt gain in reading (expected -2 -6) • Math not available – WD: • 4 pt gain in reading (expected 1 -7) • 7 pt gain in math (expected 3 -11) – IT: • Growth data not available

Focus for 2010 -2011 • Continue to develop a greater understanding of executive functioning • Continue to work with Special Education to bridge the gap • Enhanced parent workshops facilitated by a parent of 2 e children

Inver Grove Heights Community Schools Javits Grant Update November, 2010 Kim Westra, Atheneum 4 th Grade Experimental Teacher

Inver Grove Heights Community Schools • • Second-ring suburb 3712 students 29. 9% Racial and ethnic diversity 33. 6% Students receive free/reduced lunch 3 Elementary Schools 1 Middle School 1 High School

Atheneum Gifted Magnet • • School-within-a-school model Grades 2 -5 4 elementary classrooms 119 students ( open enrolled) 16% Racial and ethnic diversity 3% Receive free/reduced lunch 17 fourth graders qualified and 9 are participating in the study • 19 fifth graders qualified and 12 fifth grade participants in the study

Identification Process All assessments weighted for scores ranging 90% and above. • WISC – IV (Weschler Intelligence Scale for Children) • Cog. AT (Cognitive Abilities Test) • MAP (Measures of Academic Progress) • Parent Inventory/Teacher Recommendations • Special Considerations/Additional Outside Testing/Portfolio, etc.

Why we got involved in the study… • Increased number of students displaying executive functioning, intensity issues, and other 2 e characteristics • Student success greater in the gifted classroom but still not always commensurate to their abilities

• Students’ obvious needs for specific accommodations/strategies yet not qualifying for special education services • Staff’s desire to learn more about 2 E students and how to better meet their needs • Uniqueness of the study

What we are doing • Teacher training • Curriculum and resource development • Parent education • Identification

Capitol Hill Gifted & Talented Magnet School Full-time Gifted Program Grades 1 -8 St. Paul Public School District 625

Capitol Hill Gifted & Talented Magnet School • • Urban GT Magnet 1050 students 42% ethnicity 30% SES

Identification Process • NNAT 2 testing is required for admittance in grades 1 -6 at Capitol Hill. Testing takes place in ALL SPPS elementary schools for students in grades K and 2 in early December. Grades 1, 3, 4, & 5 can request testing if desired. • • What is the NNAT 2? Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (second edition)—This test is designed to allow for a culturally neutral evaluation of students’ nonverbal reasoning and general problem-solving ability, regardless of the individual student’s primary language, education, culture or socioeconomic status. A portfolio process is available for those students scoring between 88 -92% on the NNAT 2

How did Capitol Hill identify students for the study? • We decided to start with our 4 th graders. • Checked for Special Education identified students with IEP’s. • Asked teachers, social worker and school nurse to identify students who exhibited other exceptionalities i. e. ADD, ASD, anxiety, etc…casting a wide net, not requiring a Sp. Ed. identification.

Why we got involved in the study… • Increased number of 2 E students • Staff’s desire to learn more about 2 E students • Uniqueness of the study

Where we are in the process… • Teacher training • Curriculum development and implementation • Observations and assessments • Parent education

Where We Are Now… • 2 X children are in their second year of classroom support across the four districts. Began the year much more “settled” than in the beginning of the first year. • Teachers appear much more confident to “handle” issues that may arise. Classrooms are much less “cluttered” and systems for handing in homework, etc appear to be much more direct and simple for these kids to “succeed” • 2 X children have multiple ways to access the gifted curriculum they are offered, the projects they are to work on from posted visuals around the rooms to personal reminders inside their notebooks, and they seem to be offered multiple ways in which to show what they have learned!

To Sum It All Up • We have learned “by doing” and will be much more effective next year with issues such as: – Communication with teachers in the project – make it more direct – Communication with project leadership in each district – frequent, short emails with bimonthly steering committee meetings – Data collection procedures and timelines – streamline teacher/student observations and reflections – Training and planning workshop provisions – monthly centralized planning and training support with sub pay provided to the schools for teachers who opt to come – Focus on the idiosyncratic needs of these children who we now know pretty well – child by child

Plans for the Next Year • Training with Dr. Susan Baum of Bridges Academy, a school for twice exceptional children in California • Monthly planning/writing days held at St. Thomas for all experimental teachers who wish to continue their curriculum development efforts – each month will have a training theme (such as social skills instruction, understanding the brain and how it functions, etc. ) • Completion of three more courses in the on-line certificate program by the experimental teachers and district leadership Fourth course will finish in December • Streamlined observation and data gathering • Compilation of teacher strategies for use by all four districts’ teachers • Compilation of parent handbook of resources and readings for distribution in all four districts for all 5 years

For Further Information About Project 2 EXCEL… • Please contact our website: • www. stthomas. edu/project 2 excel • Please contact me at any time: kbrogers@stthomas. edu • Read our Individual District report on the project coming to you before the beginning of the next school year!