No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

The purpose of this study was to determine the degree to which the Norfolk Public Schools, Virginia, district elementary gifted grouping model was aligned with the National Association for Gifted Children Standards and its Local Plan for the Education of Gifted Students in regards to curriculum and instruction, as well as to provide data on classroom instruction techniques and the curriculum currently being used to provide gifted education services in the district.;The evaluation questions were (1) to what degree has the eighth recommendation of the 2005-06 evaluation study been implemented in the Norfolk Public Schools (NPS) district in regards to curriculum and instructional practices? (2) Are there differences between gifted resource teachers and cluster teachers in the use of differentiated instructional practices? (3) to what extent does the Local Educational Plan for the Education of the Gifted (LEA) for Norfolk Public Schools align with the Curriculum and Instructional NAGC standards?;Data were collected from gifted resource teachers and gifted cluster teachers via surveys and focus group interviews as well as an interview with the Director of the office of Gifted Education. Teachers also self-reported their use of differentiated strategies and their effective use on the COS-R scale.;Results indicated that differentiated is not being consistently used with gifted students and that the NPS LEA is not aligned with the NAGC Curriculum and Instruction standards. Teachers are more likely to use differentiated curriculum and instruction in reading and math than science, social studies or writing. Stakeholders report limited response to gifted students needs in classrooms. Cluster and resource teachers report the use of differentiated strategies as "somewhat effective." Cluster teachers report significantly more effective use of curriculum, planning, and delivery than resource teachers.;Implications for practice include: revision of the NPS Gifted Cluster model in regards to curriculum and instruction; monitor the progress of the revisions of differentiation practices; provide more support in order to effectively meet the needs of gifted students in classrooms; increase professional development focused on differentiated instruction and curriculum on gifted students' learning.

The problem of this study was to determine if a difference existed between selected classroom teachers' attitudes toward mainstreaming. The Attitudes Toward Mainstreaming Scale (ATMS) was the instrument selected as appropriate for the study. Permission was obtained from Joan Berryman at the University of Georgia, Athens, to reproduce and administer the ATMS. A stratified random sample was conducted as representative of the total population of classroom teachers in North Carolina. A demographic data sheet and the ATMS were mailed to 280 classroom teachers. A 75% return was obtained. The data sheet asked for the sex, present level of teaching position, area of assignment, level of formal preparation, years experience, hours taken in special education, and whether or not the teacher served mainstreamed students. Nine null hypotheses were formulated to be tested at the .05 level of significance. The t-test was used to test for significant differences for hypotheses 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, and 9. The analysis of variance was used for hypotheses 4, 5, and 6 to determine if differences existed between attitudes and years of teaching experience. If a significant difference was revealed, the Newman-Keuls procedure was used to determine where specific differences lay. Three null hypotheses were rejected. Major findings revealed that female teachers had more positive attitudes than did male teachers. Teachers with 1-5 years of experience had more positive attitudes than did teachers with more than 10 years experience, and non-content area teachers had more positive attitudes than did content area teachers.

The problem of this study was to determine if young gifted and talented students who participate in a special program of the fine arts score significantly higher on tests of intelligence, language arts achievement, creativity, and personality than young gifted and talented students who do not participate in the program. For the study 102 students from kindergarten, first, second and third grades were selected. At the end of the study, ninety-seven students were posttested. Five students had moved from the school district. The students were selected for the program on the basis of teacher recommendations and on the basis of scores acquired on tests of intelligence, achievement, and creativity. Students selected for the program were additionally administered a personality pretest. Following participation in the fine arts program they were administered posttests in the four areas. The following questions were considered: (1) Does participation in a fine arts program significantly enhance the test scores of young gifted and talented students in the areas of intelligence, language arts achievement, creativity, and personality? (2) Does participation in a fine arts program and in an additional home component of the program significantly enhance the test scores of young gifted and talented students in the areas of intelligence, language arts achievement, creativity, and personality? (3) Does the basis of selection for a special program for gifted and talented students significantly influence the test scores in the area by which the student was selected? The study revealed that gifted and talented students at certain grade levels who participated in a fine arts program for a minimum of one hour per week scored significantly higher on tests of intelligence and on tests of creativity than young gifted and talented students who did not participate in the program. The study also revealed that students selected for the program on the basis of creativity showed significant increases in test scores of intelligence when compared with students selected on the basis of intelligence or language arts achievement.

No description available.

Teacher preparation programs in special education are responding to demands for quality. Sources inside and outside the field of education have called for change. In 1986, the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) accreditation redesign was implemented. The Council For Exceptional Children (CEC) adopted Standards for the Preparation of Special Education Personnel in 1983 and these standards for special education programs have become a part of the NCATE redesign. This study proposes to answer the question of whether these professional standards and the NCATE redesign have had a direct impact on masters level special education teacher preparation program quality and development.;Research was conducted on a national level surveying teacher preparation programs for the mildly and moderately handicapped. The sample of 150 included members of NCATE due for program review in 1987-88 and those in 1990-91, as well as a sample of programs that are non-NCATE members. Analysis viewed differences in NCATE/non-NCATE teacher preparation programs, programs being reviewed for continuing accreditation in 1987-88 and 1990-91, and the extent to which the CEC standards for the Preparation of Personnel and Code of Ethics are addressed when comparing the NCATE and non-NCATE accredited institutions.