Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Gifted Identification Step topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District proposes changes to STEP/gifted identification: switch from OlSAT to I‑Ready screeners, broaden profile‑based review
Summary
District staff proposed revising the gifted identification process used for STEP: replacing the group‑administered OlSAT cognitive screener with I‑Ready academic screeners plus Gifted Rating Scales and Smarter Balanced data, shifting some screening grades and keeping teacher recommendation and appeals processes.
District staff presented proposed changes to the Wallingford STEP (gifted services) identification process, explaining the rationale and addressing several board member concerns during a prolonged discussion.
Amy Turner introduced the revised procedures with STEP teacher colleagues (Mr. Pekakis and Mr. Andresen). The recommendation replaces the group‑administered OlSAT cognitive screener — which staff said produced inconsistent and unreliable percentile results across years when administered on a computer to groups — with a screening approach that begins from students’ I‑Ready reading and math results (fall and winter administrations). Students who fall within a designated I‑Ready range would be flagged for further evaluation rather than being admitted on a single cognitive score alone.
Turner emphasized that the I‑Ready is an academic proficiency measure, not a cognitive aptitude (IQ) test, and that the revised process preserves multi‑piece evaluation: teacher‑completed Gifted Rating Scales (GRS) covering creativity, motivation and leadership; Smarter Balanced results as an additional data point; and further individualized assessment after parental permission through a planning and placement team (PPT). The staff described an appeals process in which parents can submit additional information and the district will re‑review spring and fall I‑Ready scores, re‑administer the GRS and consider Smarter Balanced results for a fuller profile.
Presenters also proposed adjusting routine screening grades: continuing primary screens in grade 3 and 5 and shifting one middle‑school screen from grade 7 to grade 6 so students identified in middle school have both seventh and eighth grade available for STEP services. The district will still allow off‑year identification for students recommended by teachers or who move into the district.
Several board members expressed concerns. Some members said they preferred retaining the OlSAT (citing standardized cognitive testing and historical cutoffs such as 94th percentile) and worried about increased subjectivity in rating scales and reliance on an academic screener. District staff responded that local analysis showed the OlSAT produced large year‑to‑year score variability when used in group computer administration and that relying solely on that measure left many currently served students outside the threshold. Staff said their statistical review of past STEP students’ profiles informed the new combined‑measure approach and that the number of students served is expected to remain similar under the new criteria.
No formal board vote was taken; staff indicated the STEP curriculum revisions will come to the full board for approval when ready and that the identification handbook and procedures were being presented for committee input. Board members asked for further documentation of the statistical analysis that compared OlSAT and other measures and for clarity about appeals and transition cases when students join the district.
