Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Gifted Education topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board weighs STEP/gifted identification changes; debate centers on i‑Ready, teacher rating scales and cognitive assessment
Summary
Committee discussed proposed changes to the STEP gifted-and-talented identification process, including use of i‑Ready screening and the Gifted Rating Scales (GRS); some board members urged adding a cognitive assessment or alternative measures before final adoption.
During the May 5 committee meeting the board discussed proposed revisions to STEP (the district’s gifted-and-talented program) identification procedures, focusing on whether i‑Ready screening and teacher‑completed rating scales provide adequate evidence to identify gifted students.
Board member Mister Vato led a detailed discussion about cognitive testing and identification criteria. He said the district’s proposed reliance on i‑Ready and the teacher-completed Gifted Rating Scales (GRS) raised concerns that a student’s underlying cognitive abilities (for example, reasoning, executive function, memory and higher-order problem solving) might not be captured. "None of those — neither the teacher input nor the i‑Ready — really gets into the cognitive ability of a child," Vato said, urging the committee to consider additional cognitive measures.
District staff described the multi-stage process in the draft handbook. The district will use i‑Ready as an initial, district-wide screener to flag students for further review; following parental consent the committee will gather additional data (including the GRS instrument completed by teachers). Staff said the GRS is a standardized, norm-referenced teacher rating instrument intended to measure intellectual functioning, creativity and motivation and that individualized cognitive testing (for example, WISC or similar measures) remains available through the PPT process where appropriate.
Why it matters: identification determines access to STEP services and classroom differentiation. Board members debated two risks: missing gifted students if screening does not capture cognitive ability, and over-identifying students if tools cast too wide a net.
Board discussion and follow-up: several members asked whether the revised process expands or narrows the pool of candidates; staff said the change was designed to improve identification reliability after finding inconsistencies with prior group cognitive tests. Members also confirmed there is an appeal process for parents and an annual review of STEP placements; staff said a PPT (Planning and Placement Team) route remains available for parents seeking a formal gifted evaluation.
No final vote on changes was recorded at the meeting; members requested more detail and time to reflect. Staff signaled the handbook must be finalized soon to permit identification for the coming year, and several board members asked that the policy committee or staff provide additional documentation about cognitive‑ability measures that could complement i‑Ready and the GRS.
Ending: the committee did not adopt a final change at the May 5 meeting. District staff will provide additional material on cognitive-assessment options, norming and the GRS instrument so the board can reconsider the STEP identification handbook before final adoption.
