Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Gifted Education topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Flagler Schools reviews gifted identification options; board debates universal screening and service models
Summary
District staff outlined current identification and service options for gifted and high‑achieving students and reported 238 students currently identified as gifted; board members urged exploration of a universal screener, training for staff, and clearer parent communication about MTSS and gifted referral processes.
District specialists presented an overview of how Flagler Schools identifies and serves gifted and high‑achieving students and proposed next steps including improved staff training, clear vocabulary and consideration of a universal screener.
Presenters said the district currently identifies 238 students as gifted (elementary 64 students, middle 56, high school 118), with an ethnic breakdown of approximately 80.8% White, 10.4% Hispanic and 8.8% Black/African‑American among the identified group. The current referral process relies on parent or teacher requests; teachers complete a checklist and, if thresholds are met, students are evaluated by the school psychologist within about 45–60 days.
District presenters defined terms to reduce inconsistent usage across campuses (acceleration, advanced/honors, enrichment, gifted per Florida Department of Education definition) and described existing service models: consultation services with a teacher holding a gifted endorsement, advanced classes, grade‑level grouping for gifted students, elementary ‘‘Excel’’ promotion and K–12 Acela/secondary acceleration options including honors, AP, Cambridge/AICE, IB, dual enrollment and the locally named CAP (Flagler Acceleration Program). Staff said grouping and advanced options are provided within zoned schools and that students do not need to be transported outside their home school to access grouped services.
Board members asked whether the district has enough gifted‑endorsed teachers and whether the identification process contributes to demographic disparities in gifted identification. Presenters said the district employs about 40 gifted‑endorsed elementary teachers and suggested a lack of universal screening likely contributes to underidentification of some student groups. Several board members urged the district to explore a universal screener and to ensure the screening process does not rely solely on school psychologists; presenters agreed a screener could be administered without a psychologist but noted staffing and follow‑up capacity (psychological evaluation and MTSS processes) would require planning.
Directors and board members emphasized communication: parents should understand that students receive interventions while a screening or evaluation is pending, and that district staff must standardize vocabulary and process steps so families know where to go and what to expect. Recommended next steps included setting a standard operating approach within the student progression plan, targeted professional learning for teachers and counselors, and exploring options for a universal screener and capacity to administer and follow up on results.
