Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Gifted Education topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Union County presents 2025–28 AIG plan emphasizing access, multiple identification pathways
Summary
Union County Public Schools presented its 2025–28 Academically or Intellectually Gifted (AIG) plan April 30, emphasizing three identification pathways (intellectual, academic and an alternative portfolio route), expanded programming, and continued professional development; the committee voted 4-0 to forward the plan to the full board.
Union County Public Schools staff presented a proposed 2025–28 Academically or Intellectually Gifted (AIG) local plan to the district Curriculum Committee April 30, outlining identification changes, expanded programming and accountability steps.
Dr. Charlotte Hancock, director of college readiness, said the plan “fulfills the statewide mandate as well as [creates] a comprehensive and rigorous AIG program and to develop the potential of K through 12 students.” She described a team process that included input from students, families, school leaders and a steering committee.
The plan strengthens identification by creating three pathways — intellectual, academic and an alternative pathway (pathway 3) that includes options such as portfolios — and clarifies language around the alternative pathway. Programming revisions include expanded enrichment and acceleration options and increased instructional support such as talent development, where classroom teachers partner to provide differentiated support.
For curriculum and instruction the plan increases emphasis on rigor, problem solving and student autonomy and aligns AIG work with the district’s Portrait of a Graduate and other priorities. The professional development element will expand AIG training for teachers and continue the AIG Academy. For accountability, staff said the plan sets clearer procedures for program evaluation and data use to monitor student progress.
Committee members posed questions about implementation. When asked for a personal assessment, Hancock said she was “very excited about the work that was done for this plan” and cited broad collaboration among stakeholders. The committee voted 4-0 to send the proposed plan to the full board for approval.
The presentation was informational and the committee did not adopt the plan at the committee level; staff will present the full plan and supporting documentation to the full board. No funding breakdowns or statutory citations were included in the committee presentation.
