Volume 1 - Issue 1 - DBU Journal for K-12 Educational Leadership

ED. D. K - 12 FULL PAGE AD • Three weekends per semester • Summer trips to Austin and Washington, D.C. • Degree completion in four years while working full time • Integration of faith and learning at a Christian university • Direct application to current K-12 issues • Lifelong relationships through the cohort model • Improvement in your K-12 educational setting through Ed.D. treatise • Tuition competitively priced • Superintendent certification Earn Your Doctorate at DBU emphasizes a practical approach to leadership development utilizing the Christian servant leadership model while preparing individuals to have a transformational impact on their K-12 setting. The Ed.D. in Educational Leadership K-12 program Program Features For more information, please contact us: 214.333.5728 · www.dbu.edu/doctoral/edd · neil@dbu.edu

Journal for K-12 Educational Leadership 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS EDUCATIONAL IMPACT OF BRING YOUR OWN DEVICE PROGRAMS IN 1:1 SCHOOLS.............................................................................................................7 Eric Creeger 1. AN INTERVIEW STUDY OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES’ AND TEACHERS’ EXPERIENCES WITH AN ELEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING PROGRAM.............................................................................................................................................12 Mindy K. Tolbert 2. GREETINGS FROM THE DEAN...........................................................................................................5 A WORD FROM THE EDITOR.................................................................................................................6 OPTIONS FOR EDUCATING THE GIFTED CHILD.......................................................................16 Kathryn Pabst Schaeffer 3. THE EFFECT OF ENGAGEMENT ON AT-RISK STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT: A CORRELATIONAL INVESTIGATION..........................................................................................23 Debbie Cano 4. SECONDARY TEACHERS’ KNOWLEDGE AND ATTITUDES TOWARD ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS AND THEIR IMPACT ON ACHIEVEMENT...................................................................................................................................28 Kevin Dixon 5. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AN ENGLISH LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY ASSESSMENT AND A STATE MATHEMATICS ASSESSMENT AMONG EXITED ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS............................................................................................................................................34 Nathan S. Frymark 6. THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PROJECT BASED LEARNING IN EIGHTH GRADE SOCIAL STUDIES ON ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT, ATTENDANCE, AND DISCIPLINE............................................................................................................................42 Cynthia Anne Mika 7. JOURNAL FOR K-12 EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP

2 EFFECTS OF TEXAS BEHAVIOR SUPPORT INITIATIVE ON REDUCING AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIORS IN ELEMENTARY STUDENTS...................................................................................48 Kevin S. Hood 8. JOURNAL FOR K-12 EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP PUBLISHING INFORMATION EDITOR Sharon Lee, Ph.D. ASSISTANT EDITOR Aubra Bulin COMPETENCIES OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOL MUSIC ADMINISTRATOR: TEXAS MUSIC ADMINISTRATOR PERSPECTIVES................................................................................................55 Jeremy L. Earnhart 9. STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT FOR ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS AND NON-ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS: DUAL LANGUAGE, TRADITIONAL BILINGUAL, AND ALL ENGLISH PROGRAMS........................................................................................................................64 Shannon Cole 10. TABLE OF CONTENTS ART DIRECTOR Layna Evans LAYOUT Bailey Barr

Journal for K-12 Educational Leadership 3 Neil Dugger, Ed.D. GREETINGS FROM THE DEAN Journal for K-12 Educational Leadership 2017, VOL. 1, ISSUE 1 http://www.dbu.edu/doctoral/edd Greetings, Thank you for reading the first edition of the DBU Journal for K-12 Educational Leadership, sponsored by DBU’s Center for K-12 Educational Leadership! It is our prayer that this journal will be of great service to the practitioners in the field of K-12 education, answer - ing many of the questions you may have in education. These articles are selected from the many outstanding treatises (dissertations) completed in the past year at Dallas Baptist University’s College of Education. This will become an annual publication and will be provided free of charge to our K-12 educational partners. The Doctorate of Education in Educational Leadership K-12 program was established to provide a practitioner’s degree that would contribute to educational research. We now have over 130 doctoral students in thirteen cohorts and sixty graduates of the program. Our students are in leadership positions all over north Texas - and beyond - in our traditional public schools, public charter schools, and private schools. While their training is to provide skills in servant leadership and make an impact on students in their schools, another goal is to generate research to identify what truly works in our schools. Dallas Baptist University is an institution of higher education that serves over 5,000 students, with almost 1,000 identified as K-12 educators seeking a bachelor’s, master’s, or doctoral degree. In 2016, the National Council on Teacher Quality rated DBU’s elementary teacher preparation program in the top 1% of all programs in the United States! Our master’s programs serve future administrators, counselors, curriculum directors, special education educators, reading/ESL/bilingual educa - tors, and teachers - usually in a scholarship-aided cohort in their home district. The doctoral program focuses on developing servant leaders. Highlights of each level of programs can be found in this publication. Thank you for your service as a K-12 educator, and a special thanks for being a great partner with Dallas Baptist University. You have a difficult job, but you produce outstanding graduates who make wonderful contributions to our American soci - ety. As we continue to partner with you in this mission, please do not hesitate to contact us if we can be of service. Wishing you many blessings! Dr. Neil Dugger Dean, College of Education Director, Ed.D. in Educational Leadership K-12

4 Sharon Lee, Ph.D. AWORD FROM THE EDITOR Journal for K-12 Educational Leadership 2017, VOL. 1, ISSUE 1 http://www.dbu.edu/doctoral/edd Dallas Baptist University is proud to present the inaugural issue of the Journal for K-12 Educational Leadership. In this issue, you will read articles written by a selection of grad - uates of the Doctorate in Educational Leadership K-12. These outstanding school leaders were members of the first two cohorts of students in the DBU Ed.D. K-12 program who graduated in 2015. They conducted research in their home districts on topics that had local interest and local impact. Our degree is based on the premise that school districts have questions that require local answers as well as research problems that need immediate and site-based solutions. While much of the research traditionally available to educators provides a plethora of philosophies and theories about teaching and learning, those theories may not always be easily transferrable to the issues that concern schools in the north Texas region. In our program, the treatise is the final research project of a four-year program. Just like other doctoral dissertations, the treatise is a five-chapter research report that reviews the existing research literature on a topic, presents an important research problem, and poses research questions with accompanying data on the topic. Based on the servant leader model of DBU, students are directed to bring answers to their districts that could empower learners and teachers alike. What follows in this journal are condensed versions of the complete treatises that were prepared with area administrators and school leaders in mind. (The complete versions of these treatises are available at DBU and through traditional dissertation searches.) Each of our doctoral graduates has also provided an email address for communication purposes. These leaders have a lot more to say on the topics of their research than could be included in these abbreviated journal articles. Many of the articles focus on instructional topics such as 1:1 technology integration, project-based learning, instructional coaching, and behavior intervention supports. Several articles discuss aspects of English language learning and bilingual/ dual language issues that are so important in the North Texas region. Other articles have a state-wide impact and address gifted education, school engagement, and music administration. All contributors represented in this issue grew as researchers and as educational leaders through their studies in our doctoral program. At the present time, we are pleased to report that over 80% of our graduates have been promoted or advanced as a result of the doctoral degree. Their sphere of influence as leaders and researchers is far-reaching, and we are proud to present their research for others to review. Their servant leadership development makes them outstanding leaders in many districts in this region, and they can now share their insights with other educational leaders. Every article has the potential to make an impact on a broad range of issues in a variety of classrooms, and it is our hope that the research results will make a difference for the children who are educated in the North Texas region, the state of Texas, and beyond. Dr. Sharon Lee Director of Research in K-12 Education Editor, Journal for K-12 Educational Leadership

Journal for K-12 Educational Leadership 5 Introduction For years, giving every student a laptop was seen as the holy grail of educational technology, a strategy that would leverage computers to allow for a much higher level of stu - dent achievement, increased problem-solving skills, and, of course, high standardized test scores. As technology has evolved, the multitude of options available—from full scale desktops and laptops to more limited netbooks, tablets, and mobile devices—has made choosing appropriate devices a challenging proposition for school leaders. We have now reached the point where many argue that students and their families can provide their own internet access and technolo - gy devices, removing schools from the burden of choosing, purchasing, and maintaining said equipment, but too often the information available for making the best educational decisions has lagged behind the tools available, forcing school leaders to decide by logistical factors such as cost and availability rather than by measuring the impact specific de - vices may have on student learning. Literature Review Deciding between a school issued 1:1 technology program and a program that allows students to bring their own de - vices to school is complicated, involving a variety of fiscal, political, and curricular factors. Most studies on the impact of technology on learning have focused on one delivery model or the other and have not made direct comparisons within the same population. Measuring the educational im - pact of school provided netbooks and tablets against the use of personal technology inside a district that has been issuing computing devices to every student provides better data and allows the district to make sound educational decisions for their students. In response to the funding and support challenges of technology programs featuring full scale laptops, many schools are moving to lighter, cheaper, “netbook” devices. Netbook is a term used to refer to a type of laptop that runs off a solid state drive rather than a traditional spinning hard disk and generally uses a combination of applications, web tools, and software installed on the computer to perform tasks. Netbooks are smaller, lighter, and cheaper than laptops, but do not have as much computing power and are not as versatile (Alien, 2012). Currently, the most popular netbook in educational environments is the Google Chromebook (Herold, 2014). Proponents of the move from laptops to netbooks tend to cite cost, instructional opportunities, and limited administrative burdens as their primary reasons for making the shift. Among commonly cited disadvantages of netbooks are their inability to run popular business software like Microsoft Office and the perception that since the devic - es are smaller and cheaper than laptops, they are flimsy and will not hold up in a high usage school setting. The expansion of school issued laptop programs has slowed over recent years and may have reached a plateau (Harris, 2011) making way for a move to mobile devices as the best way for many schools to incorporate technolo - gy into their curriculum. When Apple rolled out the Ipad in 2010, it suggested the idea that education’s traditional, bulky, expensive textbooks would soon be digitized in a Eric Creeger, Ed.D. EDUCATIONAL IMPACT OF BRING YOUR OWN DEVICE PROGRAMS IN 1:1 SCHOOLS Journal for K-12 Educational Leadership 2017, VOL. 1, ISSUE 1 http://www.dbu.edu/doctoral/edd

6 small tablet promising flexibility and instant access to cur - rent information and instructional content. Many schools searching for a 1:1 option began adopting the platform, making IOS devices like Ipads among the most popular devices in the educational market. Although Microsoft Windows devices such as traditional laptops remain the overall leader in the fragmented educational technology market, in the third quarter of 2014, Apple’s IOS laptops and Ipads allowed it to retain a small lead on Google’s Chromebook netbooks with a 31% market share compared to Google’s 27% (Luckerson, 2014). Some of the concerns with tablet devices include lim - itations on their abilities, the long term cost due to the need to purchase new apps constantly, rapid obsolescence, and incompatibility with many existing educational products. Additionally, many educators argue that while tablets do many things well, the lack of an integrated keyboard and limited options for expansion of memory and accessories means that they will never be standalone devices and will always work best as a complement to traditional computers or even laptops (Barrett, 2012). School districts across the country are beginning to allow students to bring their own personal computing devices to school,apolicythatwasformerlytheprovinceofexclusiveprivate institutions with the wherewithal to require computers of all of their students as a conditionof enrollment. These programs are often referred to as BYOD for Bring Your Own De - vice policies. Mobile technologies as used in BYODprograms are defined in many ways. One study defined mobile technologies as “hand-held devices (smartphones, cell phones, PDAs, MP3 players, pocket PCs, tablet PCs, and other hand-held devices) that can create, transfer, or display information via the Internet or other means” (Nelson, 2012, p. 13). The key distinction in defining a BYOD program, though, is not necessarily in the type of device used, but rather in the private ownership of the device. Many schools cite fiscal constraints as the primary rea - son for implementing a BYOD policy instead of a 1:1 policy. In this age of ever tightening budgets, providing funding for educational technology is a huge challenge. As educational budgets are tightened, the rapidly shifting technology landscape works the other way and makes specific devices smaller, cheaper, and more affordable for individuals and families. This proliferation of smart phone, tablet technology, and smaller, cheaper, netbook devices has made shifting the burden of providing personal computing devices from the government to the average family feasible for the first time (NPD Group, 2014). The shift that many schools are making from school sponsored laptop programs, netbooks, or tablets to a BYOD model raises many questions regarding the effec - tiveness of the various models. Perhaps the most interesting aspects of a change to BYOD policies are in the impact on student achievement that occurs when students are given the option to provide their own technology instead of doing without or relying upon school issued equipment. The Study The study’s purpose was tomeasure the educational impact of school provided laptops and tablets against the use of personal technology inside a school that had been issuing a varietyof computingdevices toeverystudent. Toaccomplish this, the researcher utilized the results of a district generated technology questionnaire to classify students into groups based on their preferred technology platform: school issued netbooks or tablets; or the student’s personal device. Achievement results were then measured using scale scores from the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR) tests. The groups were compared using a series of ANOVA tests to determine if their results were significantly different and, when appropriate, post hoc tests were run to determine which technology deliv - ery system produced the highest STAAR results and what the effect sizes were. Results, Findings, and Implications In the current study, the researcher focused on one middle school in a large, urban North Texas school district that has issued computing devices to high school students since 2002. Using technology in instruction was a primary goal of the district school board and central administration and all teachers received extensive training in digital pedagogies. The specific middle school se - Eric Creeger, Ed.D.

Journal for K-12 Educational Leadership 7 lected for the study had provided laptops and tablets to students at a 1:1 ratio from 2011-2014. Additionally, the school had been piloting policies that allowed students to bring their own devices to school for instructional pur - poses since 2013. In the Spring of 2014, students in the selected middle school completed a district questionnaire designed to assess technology usage and to gather student feedback for technology purchases. As a part of this survey, students were asked to choose which device they preferred to use to access the class curriculum during the 2013-14 school year. Students chose either school Ipad, school netbook, or my personal device . Also in the spring semester of 2014, the students took the STAAR, tests that cover the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) objectives for various subjects. Students were tested in sixth grade math and reading; seventh grade math, reading, and writing; and eighth grade math, reading, science, and social studies. The data collected from the survey and the state tests were analyzed in a quantitative research, group compari - son design. For each test, the study asked if there was a dif - ference in student achievement levels, as measured by the STAAR test, between sixth grade math students who used school issued netbooks, school issued tablets, or their own personal mobile devices to access the school curriculum. In these questions, the independent variable was the type of device the student used as the primary means of accessing the content; a personal device or the school issued laptop or tablet. In this design, the dependent variable was the actu - al achievement result on the state tests. Because the type of technology used was determined by student choice and was outside the control of the researcher, the study can be classified as a causal comparative design. Since there were three independent groups for each test (6th, 7th, and 8th grade), the scores were compared using a series of one-way-be - tween-subjects analysis of variance (ANOVA), with the as - sistance of SPSS software. All hypotheses were tested using the same procedure and the same alpha level ( p < .05). After each ANOVA run, the researcher determined whether a sig - nificant difference between the means existed and, when necessary, used a Tukey post hoc test to explore how the groups differed. Results and effect sizes are listed in Table 1. (See Table 1 on page 10.) Implications Despite the challenges in generalizing the results of this type of study, there is some useful information that can be extracted from the results. In this study, the data reflected that there were small differences in four of the nine tested areas indicating school issued netbooks allowed students to score better than using school issued Ipads or their own personal technology devices. There was one area, seventh grade writ - ing, where netbooks had an advantage over students’ per - sonal devices, but in this test, no statistical difference over school provided Ipads was indicated. Since none of the tests indicated an overall advantage for students using school issued tablet devices, these findings confirmed the belief of many educators that school wide tablet programs are not the best model for improving achievement (Barrett, 2012; Herold, 2014). The study results also demonstrated that in the five tested areas where the null hypothesis was reject - ed, bring your own device programs do not, by themselves, make a positive difference when compared to school issued netbook or tablet programs. The results of this study do provide some limited statistical evidence that the choice of technology model made a significant impact on student achievement. In four of the nine tested areas, students who used school provided net - books scored slightly better on standardized tests than those who used school provided tablets and, in five of the nine tested areas, those same netbook students did better than students who preferred to use their own personal technol - ogy. There were no tests performed that indicated that stu - dents using school provided tablets or their own personal devices scored higher on state achievement tests. In each case, though, the effect size was small, suggesting other fac - tors had a larger impact on student achievement. Although the netbook students scored marginally higher on state achievement tests, these results imply BYOD programs and policies that are being implemented, largely for financial reasons (O’Donovan, 2009), can continue without a dramatic negative impact on student achievement. Since the results of this study show such small differences in a school that is piloting bring your own device policies in an

8 experimental manner, it is easy to argue the costs savings of a BYOD program would allow for investment in profession - al development to increase instructional efficacy and lead to net gains in achievement at a lower total cost. In terms of contribution to the research on technology integration, the question of whether the various laptop and tablet programs or Bring Your Own Device policies influence student achievement remains somewhat open. In this study, the students who used school provided netbooks tended to do marginally better, but the most positive conclusion that can be asserted is that the BYOD policies in the first year of their implementation at the selected middle school did little harm to student achievement levels. While there were limitations and limited opportunity to generalize the information from the study, the data in its entirety is valuable information for making instructional deciEric Creeger, Ed.D.

Journal for K-12 Educational Leadership 9 sions and recommendations for further inquiry in the school and district where the study was conducted. It is clear that, while school issued tablets do not hinder student learning, they do not provide an advantage in any area. In practical terms, this places them behind the more cost efficient op - tions of a proven netbook program and behind BYOD policies that are potentially even cheaper and more effective and suggests that today’s schools are best served by “device agnostic” policies (Johnson, 2014) that permit students to switch back and forth between a variety of technological tools. Conclusion The current research study used data comparing the state achievement test results of students who used netbooks, tab - lets, and their own personal devices, a comparison not made in many of the other technology studies that are available. The data in this study shows a minor statistical advantage for a netbook model in the school under consideration, but very little practical difference in the results for students who are using their own personal devices. Schools, then, should continue to provide every student with technology access by whatever means necessary, whether that is a systemic 1:1 program, through policies that encourage families to provide their own devices, or some combination of the two. References Alien, A. (2012, April 7). Laptop vs netbook vs tablet: Which should I buy? [Online forum comment]. Retrieved from http://adroitalien.hubpages.com/hub/Laptop-vs-Net - book-vs-Tablet-Which-Should-I-Buy Barrett, B. (2012, January 19). You can’t afford Apple’s education revolution. Retrieved from http://gizmodo.com/5877574/ you-cant-afford-apples-education-revolution Harris, C. (2011). Ready to go mobile? School Library Journal, 57 (9), 14. Herold, B. (2014, November 12). Chromebooks gaining popularity in districts. Education Week. Retrieved from http:// www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/11/12/12chrome - books.h34.html Johnson, L. (2014, May 14). 5 tools for the device agnostic classroom [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://www.edu - demic.com/5-tools-device-agnostic-classroom/ Luckerson, V. (2014, December 1). Google is now beating Apple in this one key sector. Time. Retrieved from http:// time.com/3612557/Ipads-chromebooks-education/ Nelson, L. (2012). The student voice: A study of learning experiences enriched by mobile technologies (Master’s thesis). ProQuest. (1283387456) NPD Group. (2014, December 11). Kid’s usage of smartphones and tablets outpaces all other electronics [Press release]. Retrieved from https://www.npd.com/wps/portal/npd/us/ news/press-releases/kids-usage-of-smartphones-andtablets-outpaces-all-other-electronics/ O’Donovan, E. (2009, February 1). Are one-to-one laptop programs worth the investment? District Administration, 45 (2), 18-11. About the Author Dr. Eric Creeger currently serves as Senior Lecturer and Program Coordinator for Educational Leadership at the University of North Texas – Dallas. Previous positions held include consultant for the American Alliance for Innovative Systems, instructional technology specialist, and campus level administrator. He holds a bachelor’s degree from the University of Dallas, a master’s degree from the University of North Texas, and a Doctor of Education in Educational Leadership K-12 from Dallas Baptist University. He can be reached at Eric.Creeger@UNTDallas.edu.

10 AN INTERVIEW STUDY OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES’ AND TEACHERS’ EXPERIENCESWITH AN ELEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING PROGRAM Mindy K. Tolbert, Ed.D. The face of education across the nation is changing and accountability for increasing student achievement is in the forefront of the minds of today’s educators (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Morgan, 2011; Wenglisky, 2000). Elevated demands from federal and state legislation and accountability for academic progress of students have produced an urgent need for sustained, consistent, and job-embedded professional development for classroom teachers (Strawn, Fox, & Duck, 2008). With this in mind, schools across the nation are searching for targeted professional development options for educators that include opportunities for teachers to share what they know, dialogue about what they desire to learn, and opportunities to connect new learning in their own con - texts (Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1995). Professional Learning Communities (PLCs), which pro - vide ongoing discussion and staff support about real life situations, are one way to sustain learning gleaned during professional development experiences (DuFour, DuFour, Eaker & Many, 2010). PLCs are a widely used means for providing educators with targeted learning, opportunities for collaboration, and professional reflection (DuFour et al., 2010; Wiggins & McTighe, 2006). The professional learning community model entails staff focusing on learning rather than teaching, working collaboratively, and practicing mu - tual accountability to fuel continual improvement (DuFour, 2004). Additionally, PLCs promote change that occurs over time to increase student outcomes (DuFour et al., 2010). In tandem with PLCs, instructional coaching has also emerged as a promising approach and solution to implementing targeted professional development (Knight, 2009). An instructional coach (IC) offers campus based, job-em - bedded professional development on an ongoing basis through support and encouragement of teachers by improving teaching strategies, promoting teacher reflection, and focusing on desired outcomes (Knight, 2009). According to Knight (2009), it is the full time, ongoing, job embedded nature of instructional coaching that extends the potential to dramatically improve classroom instruction and student learning. At its most effective, coaching assists teachers in making informed decisions regarding classroom practice and can boost the learning and teaching process when it is embedded in a sustained and comprehensible district-wide professional development plan (Knight, 2007; Neufeld & Roper, 2003). Purpose of the Study The study was developed as qualitative, action research to explore the experiences of both elementary instructional coaches and elementary teachers in regards to an elementary instructional coach program in a large suburban district in North Texas. Analysis of information obtained from oneon-one interviews with elementary instructional coaches and elementary teachers as well as an examination of the environment for elementary instructional coaching in the district of study, henceforth referred to as the District, was utilized to deepen the understanding of how an instruction - al coach program was functioning in the K-5 elementary set - ting. Guiding questions and sub-questions addressed were: Journal for K-12 Educational Leadership 2017, VOL. 1, ISSUE 1 http://www.dbu.edu/doctoral/edd

Journal for K-12 Educational Leadership 11 1. How do elementary instructional coaches describe their experiences working with elementary teach - ers? a. What activities do elementary instructional coaches engage in as part of an instructional coaching program? b. How do elementary instructional coaches perceive instructional coaching as a professional development model? 2. How do elementary teachers describe their experiences working with elementary instructional coaches? a. What activities do elementary teachers engage in with an elementary instructional coach? b. How do elementary teachers perceive in - structional coaching as a professional development model? Procedures and Data Analysis The study concentrated on participants’ experiences and perceptions in response to open-ended interview ques - tions involving a purposeful sample of 15 elementary teachers and 15 elementary instructional coaches. All instructional coach and teacher interview data was transcribed and an analysis of each interview content was conducted. This analysis included coding and examining emerging themes and patterns based on a QSR NVivo 10 analysis. Additional data collected and included in the study involved a review of existing District documents related to elementary instructional coaching, including the District Elementary Instructional Coaching Program (EICP) Handbook. Findings in the study were increased in accura - cy by interviewing participants one-on-one and triangulat - ing data through accurate record keeping, member checks, and an expert panel review of the identified themes. Identified Themes As a part of the data analysis, a number of themes emerged throughout the interviews with instructional coaches and teachers. The major themes and coordinating sub-themes identified included: (1) collaboration, including collabora - tive planning; (2) professional development; (3) relationship building including offering support and trust; and (4) cur - riculum, including serving as an instructional resource. Collaboration Elementary instructional coach participants and elementary teacher participants reported substantial amounts of collaboration in their interactions. Collaboration efforts consisted of collaborative planning, coaching cycles, partnering together, and collaboration on instructional strategies in the classroom. All 30 participants in the study specifically set forth that they collaborated together for planning purposes. Professional Development Instructional coach participants in the current study engaged in various professional development experiences as a part of their coaching training and ongoing development. Professional learning experiences were often guided by training and professional development provided by the District as a part of the elementary instructional coaching program. Instructional coaches also reported facilitating professional development, both job-embedded and workshop style experiences, on their campuses for teachers. Both instructional coaches and teachers repeatedly mentioned instructional coaching as a form of job-embedded professional development and all 30 participants had an overall approval for the elementary instructional coaching program in the District as a professional development model. Relationship Building Elementary instructional coaches and elementary teachers both reported that relationship building was an important component of the instructional coaching program and it was valued by all 30 participants in the study. Elements of relationship building mentioned as a part of the interviews in - cluded not only working together to establish relationships to support continued growth, but also the importance of sustaining relationships over time. Establishing trust was also an element of relationships that frequently appeared in the interviews by both the instructional coach and teacher participants. Curriculum In each of the 30 interviews, there was a belief in and strong

12 commitment by both elementary instructional coaches and elementary teachers toward the work of education. All 15 elementary instructional coaches and all 15 elementary teachers believed in implementing curriculum with fideli - ty so that student achievement was positively impacted. References to curriculum by both instructional coaches and teachers participants in the study involved knowledge and implementation of the District curriculum and curriculum writing. Statements referencing curriculum also acknowl - edged professional development and training regarding elements of the District curriculum and state standards. Summary of Findings The study and findings were limited to one large, suburban school district in North Texas, referred to as the District, and were based on two guiding questions, previously present - ed. Prior to the date of the study, there had been a lack of clarity in the District on whether elementary instructional coaches’ roles and practices on individual elementary campuses aligned with District expectations. Data had also not been collected in the District to determine if elementary instructional coaches felt adequately trained to facilitate the expectations of instructional coaches set forth by the District or if elementary teachers supported the use of instructional coaching as a form of professional development in the District. Based upon the findings of the study, determinations can be made regarding these concerns. Findings of the study established that the practices of elementary instructional coaches in the District do align with expectations set by District leaders for the elementary instructional coaching program. While information gathered from study participants indicated that there was much role confusion and variation in instructional coach practice during the initial implementation of the program, data revealed that there is now much more clarity in practice. All elementary instructional coach and elementary teacher participants reported that District expectations and elementary instructional coach actions now matched. Findings of the study also indicated that the elementary instructional coaches have had extensive training in both curriculum and coaching areas. The elementary instructional coach participants all felt they were adequately prepared for their coaching role. The elementary teacher participants also revealed they felt elementary instructional coaches in the District had received proper professional development to facilitate their roles. A final finding of the study indicated that elementary teachers found value in the elementary instructional coaching program. Elementary teacher participants expressed they supported the use of elementary instructional coaches in the District. Elementary teachers felt the elementary instructional coaching program was an effective form of job-embedded professional development. Generalizations The current study used a qualitative, interview design, was completed in one school district setting, and was considered action research. Despite the difficulty in generalizing this form of research, there is some useful information that the current study can provide. The themes and subcategories that emerged from the interviews of elementary instruction - al coaches and elementary teachers clearly illustrated that the support of an instructional coach was appreciated by educators when instructional coaching involved planning, teaching, reflecting, and sharing instructional practices. Also, teachers respected the role of the instructional coach when trust had been established and valued instructional coach activities that provided support to classroom practice, collaborative campus culture, and reflective practice. When the aforementioned characteristics and practices were in place, teachers were more likely to initiate change in their own practice. This confirmed the belief and findings of other research studies that report educators who received coaching are more likely to implement the desired teaching practices and apply them more appropriately than are teachers who participate in district-directed traditional pro - fessional development workshops (Guskey & Yoon, 2009; Joyce & Showers, 2002; Knight, 2007; Shidler, 2009). Implications Although there were limitations for generalizability because of the action research nature of the study, the implications for the research findings in the study are broad. School dis - tricts may benefit by an increased understanding of an ele - mentary instructional coaching program which may allow for identifying ways in which instructional coaches are Mindy K. Tolbert, Ed.D.

Journal for K-12 Educational Leadership 13 supported and trained in their roles. Additionally, school districts that strive to provide additional resources and opportunities for both elementary instructional coaches and elementary teachers could use the information garnered by the study to modify or create new opportunities and expe - riences to assist in the development of instructional coaches in their school system. Conclusions While the study has limitations and a reduced ability to generalize the results to a broader population, the study, as well as the findings obtained, provide valuable information for instructional leaders to use in making decisions that affect the elementary instructional coaching program in the District, and potentially to other districts that utilize instructional coaching for job embedded professional development. Based upon the cumulative findings of the study, the District should continue to cultivate and support the use of elementary instructional coaches. With the face of education across the nation changing and the accountability for increasing student achievement rising, targeted and viable professional development options for educators must occur. Findings of the study, along with literature and prior studies involving instructional coaching, supports the notion that instructional coaching can be a sustainable option for school leaders to provide the much needed job-embedded professional learning. References Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher Quality and Student Achievement. Education Policy Analysis Archives ; Vol 8 (2000) Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1995). Poli - cies that support professional development in an era of reform. Kappan . Retrieved from http://www.kappan - magazine.org DuFour, R. (2004) Leading edge: Cultural shift doesn’t occur overnight—or without conflict. Journal of Staff Development , 25(4), 63-64. DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2010). Learning by doing: A handbook for professional learning communities at work (2nd ed.). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press. Guskey, T. R., & Yoon, K. S. (2009). What works in profes - sional development? Phi Delta Kappan , 90(7), 495-500. Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development. Alexandria, VA. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Knight, J., (2007). Instructional coaching: A partnership approach to instruction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Knight, J. (2009). What can we do about teacher resistance? Phi Delta Kappan , 90(7), 508-513. Morgan, N. P. (2011). From Teacher Quality to Effectiveness: Developing a Systemic Approach. The District Management Council (July/August). Neufeld, B. & Roper, D. (2003). Coaching: A strategy for de - veloping instructional capacity. The Aspen Institute for School Reform . Retrieved from www.annenberginstitute.org/pdf/Coaching.pdf. Shidler, L. (2009). The impact of time spent coaching for teacher efficacy on student achievement. Early Childhood Education Journal , 36(5), 453-460. doi:10.1007/s10643-008-0298-4 Strawn, C., Fox, R., & Duck, L. (2008). Preventing teacher failure: Six keys to success in moving beyond the “sink or swim” mentality. Clearing House , 81(6), 271-277. Wenglisky, H. (2000). How teaching matters: Bringing the classroom back into discussions of teacher quality. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2006). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. About the Author Dr. Mindy Tolbert serves as a Professional Learning Coordinator in the Frisco ISD. Previous positions held include Summer School Principal, Assistant Principal, and Teacher. She holds a Bachelor of Science from Texas Tech University, a Master of Education from Dallas Baptist University, and a Doctor of Education in Educational Leadership K-12 from Dallas Baptist University. She can be reached at tolbert_mindy@yahoo.com.

14Journal for K-12 Educational Leadership 2017, VOL. 1, ISSUE 1 http://www.dbu.edu/doctoral/edd OPTIONS FOR EDUCATING THE GIFTED CHILD Kathryn Pabst Schaeffer, Ed.D. Introduction to Educating the Gifted Giftedness, one quality considered pervasive within an in - dividual for a lifetime, is equated with the ability to learn at a fast rate, to master complex ideas, and to reason at a high level of abstraction (Dai & Chen, 2013). The gifted label generally applies when an ability level exceeds that of the average population of peers by two standard intel - ligence quotient (IQ) deviations (Gagne, 2007). Those who rank two standard deviations (SD) above the mean on an intelligence assessment are likely to become the cognitive elite and to make significant contributions to society (Dai & Chen, 2013). National and state standards for gifted education offer no guidance regarding the design of appropriate and consistent grouping to best meet the needs of exceptional students. Recently, Texas has added yearly academic gains to their accountability measures for all students, including the gifted. Thus, designing gifted and talented programming to maximize continuous academic growth is, for the first time, essential to Texas school districts’ overall account - ability ratings. Texas Education of Gifted and Talented Students In Texas, school districts identify gifted students using various assessment instruments and design programming to match their specific educational philosophies or their spe - cific financial constraints (Batenburg, 2014). Lack of consis - tency results in students being inconsistently identified as gifted and talented between school districts within the state of Texas (Batenburg, 2014). Consequently, a student may be identified as gifted in one district but not in another. Even when a student may be identified as gifted and talented in a given district, he or she can be served through a myriad of programming models. Programming and curricular decisions at the district level are further influenced by ethical, social-political, cultural, and pragmatic considerations. In the politicized educational climate, designing and providing educational services to a selected group of students ignites contentious debate. Gifted Grouping Practices for Academic Growth Grouping is a foundational academic practice especially when serving high achieving students (Reis, 2004). Purpose - ful grouping along with curriculum enhancement or differ - entiation is a best practice for any gifted program. Gifted learners achieve stronger academic outcomes when they have the opportunity to learn with those at their academic level in all academic contents (Reis, 2004). Table 1 depicts the various delivery models currently in use in K-12 schools. (See Table 1 on page 17.) Homogeneous Grouping The philosophy of homogeneous grouping as a program model rests upon the belief that gifted and talented students by virtue of their increased intellectual capacity are signifi - cantly dissimilar to other same-age students and, because of that distinction, their cognitive differences and social and emotional needs are unlike those of same-age general education students (Weinbrenner, 1992). The research on academic outcomes for homogeneous grouping of gifted students is more consistent than the research on heterogeneous grouping of gifted students. Some unequivocal statements supporting homogeneous

Journal for K-12 Educational Leadership 15 grouping have come from respected researchers in the field, such as Gagne (2007) who bid “educators to aim as much as possible for full-time grouping of gifted students” (p. 109). Gagne provided this call to arms only after the findings of earlier studies showed greater academic gains occurred with gifted students who were grouped homoge - neously. Full time homogeneous grouping of gifted students has generated academic achievement and growth. Gagne (2007) articulated that: It can be generalized from the research that full-time grouping is the only way to create appropriate condi - tions for an enriched curriculum. It answers a perma - nent problem with a full-time solution; it facilitates the enrichment of all subject matters in the regular curric - ulum and it does not require adding a teacher to the school’s personnel. (p. 111) Even the highest achievers in a homogeneously grouped classroom benefit from having to compete with one another (Kulik, 1992). In addition, when gifted high achievers are removed from the classroom environment, general education low achievers benefit from not having to compete with their more able peers (Kulik, 1992). These early findings still remain rele - vant and mitigate the concern that low-achieving stu - dents are harmed academically when grouped with their academic peers (Brulles, Saunders, & Cohen, 2010). Swiatek (2001) showed that gifted students in like-ability classrooms had larger academic gains in a year than students who had classmates of varied academic ability. Goldring’s (1990) and Swiatek’s (2001) findings supported the conclu - sion that gifted students in like-ability classrooms achieve statistically significantly higher scores on state assessments than their gifted counterparts in heterogeneous clusterTable 1. Delivery Models’ Strengths and Weaknesses

16 grouped classrooms. Rogers (2007) conducted a meta-analysis which sup - ported homogeneous grouping for ensuring the academic growth of gifted students. Rogers (2007) also reviewed 13 research studies on homogeneous grouping and concluded that gifted students grouped among intellectual peers “produced marked academic achievement gains as well as moderate increases in attitude toward academic subjects” (p. 9). The researchers in Rogers’ (2007) review cited these benefits of homogeneous grouping of gifted students: aca - demic achievement improved (Gentry, 1999); students hav - ing a more realistic perception of their academic strengths and weaknesses and increased academic challenge that was more consistent in the classroom (Kulik 2003, Rogers, 2007); teachers had the ability to meet the emotional and social needs of gifted students (Kulik 2003, Rogers, 2007); and teachers were better able to address cognitive demands when the range of student abilities was narrower (Rogers, 2007). In conclusion, homogeneous grouping removes the ceiling for gifted students and diminishes underachievement over time (Gentry & Mann, 2008). By grouping more homogeneously, the “façade of effort and ability can be re - moved and replaced with more appropriate challenge and rigor” (Gentry & Mann, 2008, p. 15). Heterogeneous Grouping The inclusion model, imported from special education, has spawned the impetus for heterogeneous grouping. Kulik’s (1992) seminal study of grouping asserted that the “dam - age to gifted students would be truly great if, in the name of de-tracking, schools eliminated enriched and accelerated classes” (p. 73). Heterogeneous grouping appeases cultural and socio-political ends, but the overall impact to gifted programs is detrimental in the long run (Reis, 2004). Ability grouping and content acceleration “must be attended to in some form in order to ensure that programs are meaningful for this special group of learners” (Reis, 2004, p. 70). The impediments inherent in moving from the theory of cluster grouped heterogeneous classes to the reality of the general education classroom make this model a difficult one to im - plement and maintain as the model’s success lies solely in the hands of an exceptional teacher. Enrichment instruction: Serving GT Students in Heterogeneous Grouping Enrichment acts as an express lane for gifted students with an added benefit of increased motivation (Gagne, 2007). Also, by condensing or compacting the regular curriculum, time is created for other learning activities. The amount and level of enrichment or compacting of content should be dependent on the level of giftedness and academic readiness (Gagne, 2007). Gagne (2007) believed that if the same research survey as Cox, Daniel, and Boston (1985) were conducted at any point in the future, the academic gains for gifted students receiving enrichment in the general education classroom would be similarly categorized as “fragmented and discon - tinuous” (p. 107). Proper enrichment activities should be judged from two perspectives. The first is whether they are relevant with re - spect to the learner’s abilities, interests, needs, and personality as well as a learning vehicle to demonstrate maximum academic talent (Gagne, 2007). The enrichment curriculum must be rich cognitively in order to be academically defensible (Gagne, 2007). Especially at the elementary level, learners’ needs can be addressed through personalized activities of choice as well as additional time to pursue personal proj - ects (Gagne, 2007). Enrichment: “How To” for Heterogeneous Classrooms Enrichment for gifted students in a heterogeneous classroom can be differentiated by content, process, or prod - uct (Tomlinson et al., 2006). Differentiating content allows more depth through acceleration. Theoretically, the goal of content differentiation is to remove the learning ceiling and thereby allow highly able students to move through the material at a pace that suits their ability. Content for gifted students can be altered with complexity and abstractness. High ability students can move quickly from acquisition to application and finally to transfer with increased focus on relationships and generalizations (Gentry & Mann, 2008). Process can be differentiated by shared inquiry, creative problem solving, problem-based learning, and discovery learning (Gentry & Mann, 2008). Because these practices are Kathryn Pabst Schaeffer, Ed.D.

RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy ODc4ODgx