Rural and Suburban Cluster Grouping: Reflections'on StaffDevelopment as a Component of Program Success -

Marcia GentryBill Keilty

Staff development practices that successfullyimplemented long-term applications of clustergrouping in two districts are analyzed, com-pared, and reviewed. Parallel practices anddifferences are discussed conceming programbeginning, implementation, and maintenance.Conclusions are drawn and six steps for useand consideration by others engaged in giftedprogram development and implementation aresuggested. These steps are: (1) conversa-tions, (2) research, (3) choosing a course ofaction, (4) implementation, (5) supporting thenew program initiative, and (6) maintenanceandgrowth.

Marcia Gentry is professor of education atMinnesota State University, Mankato, whereshe directs graduate programs in gifted edu-cation and talent development and teachesgraduate courses in gifted education andresearch. Her research interests include usingachievement grouping and student-centereddifferentiation, measuring student attitudestoward school, and the effects of student atti-tudes on leaming and motivation. She hasexperence as a classroom teacher and pro-gram coordinator, and currently serves as amember of the NAGC board of directors andas a professional development consultant.E-mail: mgentry@integraonline.comBill Keilty, Ed.D., is coordinator of Gifted Ser-vices in Spnng Lake Park, MN. Bill is anadjunct professor at Hamline University teach-ing in the gifted certificate program, the MAEDand Ed.D programs. Bill is the legislative liai-son for the Minnesota Educators of the Giftedand Talented and is a staff developer with dis-trcts in Minnesota and across the country.E-mail: microtubel@aol.com

A longitudinal study of the use of.tXcluster grouping in a rural

school completed a few years ago (Gen-try, 1996; Gentry & Owen, 1999) hasreceived quite a bit of publicity. From thisresearch, grounded theory emergedregarding teacher practices and profes-sional development (Gentry, 1999). Fur-ther, longitudinal development of asimilar program in a larger suburban dis-trict was examined. This particular pro-gram existed successfully for 16 years.By comparing and integrating what wasdone in these sites, we will discuss andoffer some strategies for planning and

Manuscript submitted May 2,2003.Revision accepted August 3,2003.

carrying out staff development that canhelp build successful gifted programswith benefits for all students and teachers.

Method

ParticipantsIn this article we examine parallel

cluster grouping programs in two differ-ent school districts and the nature of thestaff development that was deliveredwhen the programs were initially imple-mented through the programs' successfulexistence in the context of the continuumof programs and practices within theseschools. One district was the subject of aprevious quasi-experimental, longitudi-nal study, and was located in an impov-erished rural area; the other districtexisted in an affluent suburban area. Therural site involved one school (the onlyelementary school in the district), where-as the suburban site involved 7 differentelementary schools.

Design, Procedures and MaterialsUpon reading the study of the rural

site, the coordinator of the suburban sitebegan to examine identification datafrom his suburban schools and identifiedsimilar trends and findings. Dialogueconcerning practice and programsbetween the researcher and the coordina-tor led to the present study, in which weexamined staff development similaritiesand differences in an effort to describewhat was done and inform others ofthese practices. A comparative casestudy approach was chosen to examinepractices in staff development in bothsites and to provide insights into possiblereasons that each program experiencedlongevity in an era when many "new"programs never reach full implementa-tion. We discussed what staff-develop-ment activities were done in start-up andcontinuation at each site and carefullyreviewed program records and evalua-tions at each site; these records includedqualitative teacher interviews as well asstaff development evaluations and stu-dent identification data. What followsare the results of our combined findingstogether with recommendations concern-ing staff development for others whomay be considering implementing acluster grouping or similar program.

AnalysesRecords were analyzed and experi-

ences discussed qualitatively, withchronological topical themes emerging.These areas are discussed in the follow-ing order: background, start-up staffdevelopment, staff development for gen-eral educators, staff development forcluster teachers, and finally, teachers'reactions to staff development.

Background:Similarities in Identification

In the above mentioned study ofcluster grouping in the rural school, ineach of 3 program years (grades 3-5),more elementary students were identi-fied as high achievers while fewer stu-dents were identified as lowachievers-from the same class of stu-dents. It was as if the low achievers weredisappearing and were being replacedwith high achievers. Achievement testscores were documented as improving aswell, with students in the cluster group-ing school improving and outperformingstudents from a comparison school(Gentry & Owen, 1999). These resultswere a trend because they existed formore than one graduation year of stu-dents. One does not have to look too farto realize that improving test scores' hasbecome a national educational obses-sion. However, in this school theincreasing test scores were a side benefitof a strong program, as no one in the -school had as their focus the goal of rais-ing standardized test scores. There wasno analysis and remediation of test areaweaknesses-a practice far too commonin too many school districts today.Teachers in this school simply taughtstudents using the best, most interactive,engaging, and effective methods theyknew. As part of this quest for excel-lence, staff development was an integraland ongoing focus. The continued sup-'port and attention to staff developmentover a period of 8 years is noteworthygiven the limited financial resources ofthe school. This district ranked 503rd of524 state school districts in annual perpupil spending, with wealthier schoolsspending in excess of 3 times the dollarsper student than this school did (Michi-gan Department of Education, 1994).

Roeper ReviewvSpring 2004, Vol. 26, No. 3, 147-155.

Spring, 2004, Roeper Review/147

-

Similarly and simultaneously, in asuburban district in a different

state, more students in a similar applica-tion of cluster grouping were identifiedeach year as gifted. For identification,this district used a minimum score of 130on the Slosson Intelligence Test (Nichol-son & Hibpshman, 1991) for placementin the cluster-grouped classroom. Similarto the increase in the rural students'achievement scores, over time more stu-dents qualified for program placement onthe basis of their Slosson scores fromgrades one to six. In fact, the number ofidentified students often quadrupled fromthe primary grades to the upper grades,and this, too was a trend that occurredrepeatedly for six consecutive graduationyears of students (students who would begraduating from high school in 2000-2005) during their elementary years(Gentry & Keilty, 1998)1. These increas-es are depicted in Figure 1.

In The Beginning

To implement and develop a newprogram in each of these sites, the firststep was conversation. What were thebeliefs, what were the goals, what werethe possible courses of action that couldbe taken given limited funding but thedesire to do something, and finally, whatfurther information was needed to makeprogramming decisions? The importanceof such conversations cannot be overem-phasized. One has only to look at the"mission statements" posted in nearlyevery school across the country, thenexamine practices that run contrary tothe stated missions, to realize that with-

out dialogue and buy-in, programchanges are not likely to matter (Fullan,1991; Senge, 1991).In these initial conversations many

Xbiases and beliefs emerged aboutgifted students and gifted education.There were feelings of contempt amongseveral people from both sites regardingthe perceptions of "haves" and "have-nots." Many teachers expressed their con-cerns about meeting the needs of averageand low achieving students as well asconcerns about how the "so-called gifted"would be identified. During the first fewyears of implementation, the suburbandistrict encountered obstacles. Generaleducation teachers invited to staff devel-opment were somewhat resistant. A num-ber of experienced faculty membersappeared at the inservice with "clusterbuster" badges to express their oppositionto the program implementation.

Rural Site Start-up StaffDevelopment

As a result of these conversations,all teachers involved in developing thecluster grouping program in the ruralsite were given a general overview ofgifted education and talent developmentbased on the three-ring conception ofgiftedness (Renzulli, 1978) and theEnrichment Triad Model (Renzulli,1977; Renzulli & Reis, 1997). Thethree-ring conception of giftednessviews giftedness as a behavior thatresults from the interaction among thethree traits: above average ability, taskcommitment, and creativity. With theinteraction of these three traits in a spe-cific area of human endeavor, gifted

Figure 1. Suburban Identification Trends

behavior occurs. Renzulli believes thatgifted behaviors can be developed instudents who are given appropriateopportunities to develop their strengthsand interests. He proposed the Enrich-ment Triad Model as a means for devel-oping talent in more students in schools.In this model, three types of enrichmentactivities are provided for students andthere is an interaction among these typesof enrichment. Type I Enrichment con-sists of general exploratory activitiesdesigned to expose students to a varietyof topics and areas of study not ordinari-ly covered in the regular curriculum.Type II Enrichment consists of grouptraining in thinking and feeling process-es; leaming-how-to-leam skills; researchand reference skills; and written, oral,and visual communication skills. TypeIII Enrichment consists of first-handinvestigations of real problems and isbased on ways in which people leam ina natural environment, rather than theartificially structured environment thatcharacterizes most classrooms. Theseinservice sessions were conducted infor-mally with the 15 teachers and theiradministrators during 4 half-day inser-vice sessions provided by the district.The three-ring conception and theEnrichment Triad Model were selectedbecause both focus on the developmentof gifts and talents, and their selectionhelped to create buy-in among some ofthe more skeptical staff.D ue to limited financial

"resources there was no resourceroom for gifted students and little possi-bility of hiring a specialist to assist theclassroom teachers with meeting theneeds of academically advanced stu-dents. Therefore, the conversationsturned to what program would best facil-itate this notion of developing talentsand encouraging students to participatein Type HI opportunities within regularclassrooms. Cluster grouping was sug-gested by the third-grade team as aviable option worthy of investigation.These teachers researched the conceptand presented their idea to their col-leagues. While teachers at the othergrade levels were not initially interestedin becoming involved in cluster group-ing, they encouraged their colleagues topilot the program in grade 3.

When the cluster grouping programwas adopted, all teachers were involvedin two half-day inservice training ses-sions regarding the approach to clustergrouping that was being used successful-

ly in Detroit Public Schools, which alsoused the Enrichment Triad Model as a

148/Roeper Review, Vol. 26, No. 3

Identification Numbers byGraduation Year and Grade Level

140 -

12 0 gradEll g

100 Ii~~~~~~~~~~~~grade2

W) 80 l gmade 3

60 60Z El gmade 5

400

20

0

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Graduation Year

I The authors acknowledge that the glosson is rnore readily available than other inteiligence lests andrecognize that part of the increasb in number of students identified might be due to this availability.

basis for their program. Bessie Duncan,the director of gifted services for Detroit,conducted both inservice sessions withteachers. She explained Detroit's pro-gram, described identification andachievement outcomes based on pro-

gram evaluation data (Grissom, 1989),and answered questions. She also helpedthem plan what their program might looklike. After these inservices, 7 interestedteachers visited the Detroit site. Thethird grade piloted the program the fol-lowing school year. After two years ofsuccessful operation in grade 3, grades 4and 5 implemented the program as well.A "refresher" inservice was conductedand a second round of visitations wasoffered. Another 4 teachers chose to visitthe Detroit site, bringing the total ofthose who voluntarily took part in thesite visits to 11 of 15 teachers.

Suburban Site Start-up StaffDevelopment

Simultaneously, in the suburban site,clustering (Minnesota Department ofEducation, 1982) was presented as analternative to a district wide send-outexperience for the top 1% of the elemen-tary students in which students receivedweekly enrichment experiences with amotivated and creative teacher who had abackground in gifted education. At thattime the district had a half-time coordina-tor who provided support to the teacher.R? ecognizing the limitations of the

INsend-out program design andthe importance of challenging these andother gifted children on a full-time basis,another option was deemed necessary byan active parent advocacy group led byparents of the identified children. Clus-tering was explored as a possibility.Teachers and administrators in all 7 ele-mentary schools were introduced to theconcept at staff meetings. Over a 3-month period, building meetings werescheduled to answer questions and pro-vide a broader image of what clusteringwould look like in the host school. Anagreement was established that guaran-teed teachers that the program would notbe forced into the school without thecomplete support of the staff. Buildingstaff voted regarding whether to imple-ment clustering, and some began imme-diately while others took more time for

buy-in. Once a building staff voted toimplement the program, the district sup-ported this decision by providing pro-gram coordination and staff developmentfor the entire staff. One by one, over a 3-year period, all 7 elementary schools inthe district agreed to participate.

he introduction of cluster group-ing came with problems. Ques-

tions arose that were similar to thoseraised in the rural site. Who would bethe cluster teacher? Would the talent bedrained from all the other classrooms at

that grade level? Would parents, onceaware of the program, petition to havetheir child in the cluster classroom? Pro-gram coordinators sought to resolve con-fusion and address concerns. Much ofthe problem solving took place throughconversations with individuals and smallgroups, and these conversations occurreddeliberately and often.

Similarities and Differences:Start Up

Each district tried to address limitedresources and provide appropriate pro-gramming to students. The suburban sitehad a resource teacher, but provided ser-vices part-time limited to its top scoringstudents. The rural site had neither. Thesuburban site chose cluster grouping toexpand services to more students and toincrease the amount of time studentswould receive services beyond just thedesignated "send-out" time. The ruralsite proposed cluster grouping as a pro-gram delivery model and combined itwith the idea of developing gifted behav-iors and providing Triad enrichment toall of its students. In each case, at thebeginning, existing models were consid-ered, formal staff development occurred,and ongoing conversations were encour-aged to facilitate start-up of the program.

Up and Running, Now What?

General Staff DevelopmentRural site. Based on requests from

the teachers concerning their own pro-fessional needs, a menu of inservices ingifted education was provided annuallyto all teachers. Offerings including cur-riculum compacting, curricular andinstructional differentiation, enrichmentteaching and learning, and thinkingskills. These inservice sessions wereoptional, but made available to all staff,with all 15 teachers attending at leastone of the sessions and 12 attendingthree or more during a period of fiveyears. Opportunities to attend regional,

state, and national conferences on giftededucation were made available to allteachers, and 10 of the 15 teachersattended a state or national conference inthe area of gifted education.

As documented by Gentry (1999) inher monograph, an extremely important

area of staff development, which mightnot receive enough credit due to its ordi-nary nature, is that of the day-to-day dia-logue between the teacher of the gifted,in this case the cluster classroomteacher, and his/her colleagues. At each

grade level in the rural school there wascollaboration between the teachers of thehigh achieving cluster and their col-leagues wherein the general educationteachers sought the cluster teachers'input and ideas and used curriculumresources from the cluster teachers. Thegifted education specialist is an invalu-able source of information, resources,and ideas. If a collegial relationshipexists in the school, then there is freedialogue and exchange of ideas. Theeffects of having such a specialist in thebuilding can be far reaching and canserve to improve the general educationprogram as well as enhance the giftedprogram.

A nother notable area was the useby this staff of between-class

grouping as a means of meeting thediverse academic needs of their studentsin the areas of math and reading (Gentry,1999). Within the grade levels, teachersgrouped students between classes formath and reading, using performance-based, flexible achievement groups. Thehigh achieving cluster teacher did notnecessarily teach the "high" math stu-dents or the "high" reading students, andthe students in these groups were notnecessarily in the high achieving cluster.In this manner, adults other than the highachieving cluster teacher worked withhigh achievers in specific content areas.Therefore, the charge to teach advancedlevel content did not rest solely on theshoulders of the cluster teacher. Thisencouraged others to seek appropriateskills and knowledge through the on-going staff development options, whichmight explain why so many teachers par-ticipated in the optional staff develop-ment sessions.

Further, the strategy of between-class grouping by skill made the termflexible grouping a reality. For example,there might have only been 8 cluster stu-dents in grade 3, but there were enoughstudents who had advanced skills ineither math or reading to form an entireclass for those specific content areas. Asa result, students with advanced skills ina specific area received advanced cur-riculum and instruction in that area, andconversely, those who were struggling in'a specific area were placed in a classwhere they received instruction and helptargeted toward theirskill levels. Across

' Spring, 2004, Roeper ReviewIl49

all classes of math and reading there wasa curricular emphasis on advancedthinking skills and application of skillsto real problems. Teacher expectationswere high. Students were encouraged tomove through the curriculum at an indi-vidually challenging pace. It was' notuncommon to see a third grader readingwith fourth or fifth graders or a fifthgrader going to the middle school formath class. In general, there was an ori-entation of the teachers toward achieve-ment and individual needs, and staffdevelopment existed to support allteachers in their efforts to use giftededucation strategies with their students.All of the teachers in the study explainedthat grouping in this manner allowedthem to focus on meeting the academicneeds of the students in reading andmath by developing exceptional materi-als for their students at one instead ofseveral levels.

(luburban site. During the firstLthree program years, as school

faculties were adopting the clusteringprogram, staff development was provid-ed to the teachers who taught designatedclusters of identified gifted students. Asthe program expanded to include all 7elementary schools, staff developmentwas expanded to include all school per-sonnel. An initial 5 days of staff devel-opment was provided to all staff,including classroom teachers, mediaspecialists, special education teachers,and administrators. After the first 7 pro-gram years, 98% of the elementary staffhad attended 5 inservice days focused ongifted education strategies and cluster

grouping. These 5 days included topicssuch as theories and definitions of gift-edness, curriculum and instructional dif-ferentiation, classroom management,curriculum compacting, and accelerationand enrichment strategies. During the 5inservice days there were opportunitiesfor teachers to work collaboratively anddevelop curriculum and instructionalstrategies for their classrooms.

Cyimilarities and differences. EachJsite provided formal professional

development for all staff, with the major-ity of staff participating in these opportu-nities. Unlike the suburban site, the ruralsite had documented the staff develop-

ment that occurred informally and on sitethrough collaboration, conversation, theuse of grouping, and by practicing andteaching the advanced students. Thoughthese things may have occurred at thesuburban site no documentation existedto validate these effects.

Cluster Teachers StaffDevelopment

Rural site. The teachers responsiblefor teaching the high achieving clusterwere selected by the staff and adminis-tration, when three teachers who wantedto teach these classes volunteered forgrades 3, 4 and 5, and none of the otherfaculty members wanted to teach thehigh achieving cluster students. Oneteacher had been involved with giftededucation for many years and had taughta self-contained room of fourth- andfifth-grade gifted students for 5 yearsprior to the districts' adoption of thecluster grouping program. The secondand third teachers who volunteered hadbeen involved in many of the gifted andtalented workshops, and one was theparent of two gifted daughters. Parentsof academically advanced students oftenrequested placement of their children inthese teachers' classrooms because oftheir willingness to develop activities tochallenge and stimulate these students.Each of these teachers took classes ingifted education and attended manyworkshops to improve their methods forworking with high achieving students.These assignments were reconsidered ona yearly basis with the understandingthat anyone who was interested wouldbe given the opportunity to teach thisclass if they would be willing to attendworkshops or classes related to meetingthe needs of high achieving students.During 10 program years, with three andsometimes four cluster classrooms ingrades 3-5, there had been six clusterteachers. Other teachers chose to work

with clusters of learning disabled stu-dents and their teacher consultant orwith clusters of compensatory educationstudents and their math or reading aides.

Quarterly each year, cluster teach-ers were released from their teachingresponsibilities for one half day tomeet with other teachers of gifted stu-dents from the region and discuss top-ics of mutual concem. Some of thesemeetings were roundtable discussions,whereas others were more formalinservice sessions, but in everyinstance, the teachers set the agendafor the meetings. The major benefits ofthese meetings were the creation of a

network, a support group, and an ongo-ing dialogue about issues and programsof their choosing.

Stuburban site. The broad purpose ofcluster grouping was to re-order the lev-els of instruction and expectations forachievement. Therefore emphasis was

placed on higher level thinking skills tochallenge all students at high levels ofcognition, while recognizing gifted stu-dents need to spend a greater portion oftheir time engaged at the higher levels ofthinking (Clark, 1997; Feldhusen, 1991;Smutny, Walker, & Meckstroth, 1997).Therefore, building committees selectedflexible, energetic teachers who appliedto teach cluster classrooms and whocommitted to attend specific profession-al development focused on working withgifted students. Ongoing inservice forcluster teachers is crucial to the successof the cluster programs (Brown,Archambault, Zhang, & Westberg,1995). As the program in the suburbandistrict evolved so did staff developmentopportunities. A 5-day inservice sessionconducted annually before the beginningof the school year included various ses-sions for all cluster teachers such as:rationale for gifted education, character-istics of the gifted, curriculum differenti-ation, instructional and managementstrategies, curriculum compacting,teaching research, using critical and cre-ative thinking, learning stations, design-ing lessons of varying difficulty,facilitating independent study, and usingacceleration strategies.

nother component of staffdevelopment included cluster

teacher development days, which werefocused on continued program refine-ment and improvement. During theschool year, all cluster teachers weregiven 5 curriculum development/net-working days per year. On these daysteachers met in grade level or building

teams to develop curriculum alternativesand used the time to develop the"instead of' curriculum activities thecluster students demanded.

The success of the program isbased, in part, on intent. Teachers andadministrators were willing to committime and energy to support challenginglearning environments. Cluster teachersplanned and implemented complexlearning experiences that engaged notonly the cluster students, but other stu-dents, as well. Gagn6 (1995) describedthe role of teachers as catalysts. Theseteachers nurture gifts into demonstratedtalents and created the conditions that

allowed students' gifts to unfold.Regular grade level meetings in the

buildings created time for dialoguebetween the cluster teachers and their col-leagues. Widely available and ongoinggifted education staff development afford-ed the opportunity for many teachers to

1501Roeper Review, Vol. 26, No. 3

teach in cluster classrooms, while anecdo-tally extending gifted education practicesto noncluster classrooms. In 16 programyears, 70% of the elementary teachershave taught in cluster classrooms.

Similarities and differences. In bothplaces selection of the cluster teacherswas based on willingness, training, andknowledge. Each site had continuingopportunities for the cluster teachers tomeet, collaborate, learn, and create mate-rials. The suburban site saw a larger per-centage of teachers become involved ascluster teachers than did the rural site.

Perspectives of the TeachersConcerning all

this Staff Development:Does it Matter?

In the course of studying the ruralschool, qualitative methods wereemployed using interview and documentreview in an effort to determine whatfactors existed in the school that mightexplain the increases in achievement ofall students and the increased numbersof students identified as high achieving(Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Strauss &Corbin, 1990). Data were analyzed usingopen, axial, and selective coding as rec-ommended by Strauss and Corbin. Inshort, three core categories emerged: theuse of grouping, the impact of teachers,and the general school environment(Gentry, 1999). One of the themes thatemerged in the core category of "thegeneral school environment" was that ofongoing professional developmentopportunities. Program evaluation in thesuburban district provided a rich sourceof data conceming teacher reactions tothe staff development over time. Reviewof these evaluations and informal obser-vations and conversations with teachersby the program coordinator are reportedto indicate how staff development wasperceived and put to use in the suburbandistrict. The theme from the rural schooland the summary of existing informationfrom the suburban school are describedin the following paragraphs.

Professional DevelopmentOpportunities: Rural Site

During the 5 years of the study, pro-fessional development was ongoing, andmost teachers indicated that it was animportant part of their success as teach-ers and with the cluster grouping pro-gram. In addition to the ini,tial clustergrouping inservices and vitations

described earlier,,national, state, region-al, and local professional developmentopportunities in gifted education weremade available to staff, with all partici-pating in at least the local opportunities.Local workshops ranged from 2 hours toa full day in duration and included a fol-low-up to cluster grouping for all of thestaff, curriculum compacting, differenti-ating and individualizing curriculum andinstruction, promoting science talentthrough Science Olympiad, workingwith LD gifted and underachievers, inte-grating technology and curriculum, andmeeting the needs of gifted math stu-dents. Further, 5 teachers (3A, 3B, 3C,4A, 5A)2 attended a national conferenceon gifted education where they alsomade presentations; 2 (4A, 5A) attendeda national 2-week summer institute ongifted education; 6 (3A, 3B, 3D; 4A, 5A,5C) attended the state conference ongifted education (4 as presenters); and 9(3A, 3B, 3C, 3D, 4A, 5A, 5B, 5C, 5D)attended regional conferences on giftededucation. A total of 64% of the teachersattended national, state, or regional pro-fessional development conferences orworkshops in gifted education. Theeffects of these workshops on the gener-

al education classrooms are reflected inthe finding that 55% of the teachers whowere not responsible for the high achiev-ing students indicated that they usedstrategies in their classrooms that theythought were typically. "gifted educa-tion" strategies.

hese teachers described theTeffects of their professional

development experiences on theirteaching:

Almost any professional devel-opment will give me somethingI can use. I want to grow andimprove. I think my best expe-

riences have been from the gift-ed/talented and scienceconferences-they have goodspeakers, and . .. a lot of hands-on ideas that involve children. Ithink that good teaching has thechildren really involved in whatthey are doing. (Teacher 3A)I've gone to a lot of gifted con-ferences [and] I always go to[the Council for] ExceptionalChildren every year in March.That's the special educationside of me. I'm lucky-I get togo to both because of what I do.I implement a lot of the gifted

stuff into the LD stuff. BecauseI think those things work withall kids--not just gifted kids.[When we went on the visita-tions,] I didn't think,that justbecause there, was the clustergroup, that they were the onlyones that should get to do thosekinds of things. (Teacher 3B)I don't ever go to any [inser-,vice] that I don't learn some-thing. I've been teaching 34years, and each year thereseems to be an interest area.I've taken classes, right nowI'm taking inservice in technol-ogy. Each year there seemed tobe a need for.me to become abetter teacher. (Teacher 4D)I think [the cluster groupinginservice] was helpful--thereare many things people assumeeducators know automaticallyand I think the experience inbeing told and given 'a model inhow to do 'something hasalways been helpful to me. Iknow it is with kids. I like tosee new things, and particularly

cluster grouping, I thought itwas good to see. (Teacher SB)A final part of the influences of-professional development

became evident when 6 teachers men-tioned how helpful it was to have theteachers who teach the high achievingcluster in the building as resources. Twofifth-grade teachers expressed how muchthey had learned from and borrowedfrom teacher SA over the years. "I defi-nitely learned a lot from her, and not thatshe would tell me 'do this,' but shemight just mention something or let meborrow her ideas or materials" (TeacherSD). Another teacher explained:

I've learned so much from[Teacher 3A] and I adapt manyof the strategies that she useswith her high achievers and usethem with my LD and lowachievers. I don't think thatgifted education is just for gift-ed students.

Tangibles that resulted from the profes-sional development, both formal andinformal, can be seen in the instructionalstrategies that the teachers reportedusing.in their classrooms. Table I sum-marizes these strategies, identifiedthrough qualitative interview and subse-quent analysis, and lends support to the

2 Teachers were coded by their grade level (e.g., 3=3rd grade) and classroom designation of A throughE, with A designating the high achieving cluster classroom teacher.

Spring, 2004, Roeper Review/l5

Table 1

notion that this particular gifted programhad positive effects on the general edu-cation program. Most of these strategiesmight be considered gifted educationstrategies but are clearly used by manyof the noncluster teachers in their class-rooms. These findings provide supportfor extending inservice in gifted educa-tion to all educators as a means ofimproving education in general.

Responses from the SuburbanDistrict Concerning StaffDevelopment

At the close of each staff develop--ment experience, session evaluationswere conducted. The comments collect-ed provided direction for future planningand programming. A common threadthat appeared throughout the staff devel-opment experiences focused on theapplicability of the session content.Teachers consistently reported that thestrategies they had experienced duringthe staff development days could beimplemented immediately. Examinationof the evaluations from formal giftededucation inservices revealed 85% of therespondents consistently reported thestrategies were applicable and wouldhelp their instructional strategies.

The 5 curriculum development daysprovided yearly to the cluster teachersreceived high marks (averaging above4.0 on a 5.0 scale) from these teachers inthe areas of preparation, relevance,

effect on student learning, and newknowledge. Even with financial cuts tothe program, teachers and buildingadministrators recognized the impor-tance of continued networking and wereable to maintain these days as a part ofthe ongoing program staff development.

ne interesting aspect of the pro-Ofessional development journey

has been the emergence in all of the build-ings of cluster teachers as teacher leaders.Their growing confidence in the peda-gogy, their artistry in the generation ofengaging learning activities, and theirwillingness to engage their colleagues incritical dialog about practice, has placedcluster teachers on district curriculumteams and on building leadership teams,as well as provided opportunities outsidethe classroom for leadership. An experi-enced cluster teacher, successful in her/hisinitial experience teaching a graduatecourse in gifted education, remarked,"The training I received as a clusterteacher provided so much of what Iemployed today. And the teachers like it!"

Discussion:So What Does It All Mean?

As a result of comparing the role ofstaff development in the two long-termcluster grouping programs, several simi-larities have become apparent. Start-upis not instantaneous and in both cases

took many conversations to create buy-in and ownership. In each site the timefrom introduction to full implementationwas 3 years. Support for faculty in theform of staff development was providedand was ongoing. One important notehere was that in both sites this supportwas both formal (i.e., district inservices,visitations, conferences) and informal(i.e., regularly scheduled networking andcurriculum development sessions, giftededucation teacher as an informal build-ing resource). Further, professional

development was provided to all staff,not just those who taught identified gift-ed students, and as a result of this, giftededucation practices found their way togeneral education classrooms. Finally,as the programs developed, much of thecontent of the staff development oppor-tunities was determined by the facultyand their requests. All of these thingsworking in concert seemed to helpdevelop a strong program with buy-infrom staff.

ased on our analyses and com-IB parison of the types of staff

development afforded to the profession-als in each of these programs and on ourcollective experiences in working withthese two long-term programs we havedeveloped six steps for use and consider-ation by others who are engaged in pro-gram development and implementation.These steps are: (1) conversations, (2)research, (3) choosing a course of action,(4) implementation, (5) supporting thenew program initiative, and (6) mainte-nance and growth (see Appendix).

In each site, program start-up beganinformally with conversations to identifywhat people believed and hoped and toclarify their missions and goals. Somemay not think of this as staff develop-ment, but we discovered that these earlyconversations build a foundation forboth the program and for future staffdevelopment. Conversations were fol-lowed by research. We suggest deter-mining from staff what furtherinformation they need to make program-ming decisions and to identify sourcesof this information. We found that suchaction helps to invest faculty in the earlydevelopment and understanding of theprogram while at the same time replac-ing doubts with information. Once a pro-gram that aligns with beliefs andmission has been selected andresearched, we suggest developing along-term plan that has at its core con-tinuous staff development and evalua-tion, with each used to inform practiceas the program develops.

152/Roeper Review, Vol. 26, No. 3

Strategies for Challenging and Meeting Students' Needsin the Classrooms: Frequency of Use by

Cluster Teachers and General Classroom TeachersCluster General

Strategy Teachers Classroom Teachers(n =3) (n =11)

Integrating High Order Thinking Skills 3 8Developing Currcular Extensions 2 10Using Open-Ended Questioning 3 10Providing Ennchment Experences 3 7

Implementing Curriculum Compacting 3 5

Adjusting Assignments, 1 9Integrating Problem Solving 3 5

Assigning Projects . 3 2Providing Choice to Work Alone or Together 3 5Developing Crtical Thinking Skills 2 6Using Creative Thinking Skills 3 - - 3Using Acceleration 3 1Providing Choice of Partners or Groups 3 5Offering Independent Study- 3 4

Using Challenge Questions 2 3Providing Choice of Problems or Assignments 2 5

Spending lime with High Achievers 3 0

-- - ---

After a progmm has been chosen itAlmust be implemented (step 4),

and we found many considerations at thisjuncture that involve staff development.The frst concems what knowledge is nec-essary for start-up, and at the very leastincludes a whole staff general awarenesssession to help everyone begin on thesame page. The plan needs to be alignedwith beliefs, mission, and goals, and thisalignment should be both discussed andapparent. The planned implementationneeds to be both defensible and flexible sothat it can be adapted to facilitateimprovement as it is implemented. Theprevious research and alignment with mis-sion and goals will create a defensible pro-gram, and using a problem-solvingapproach to issues that' arise can embedflexibility. Another prograniung issuethat will help strengthen the program isthe alignment of identification methodswith what the program offers. For exam-ple, if the program were a cluster programas in the rural school that has as its focusacademic achievement, then it would notmake sense to use a creativity test foradmission. Also at the implementationpoint, program planners should decidewhat data will be collected and used inevaluation, as it is much easier to plan andcollect data at the onset than to try to gath-er them at a later point in time. In ourreview of program evaluations and in ourconversations, we concluded that one ofthe reasons for the longevity and successof both of these cluster grouping programswas that in each district the cluster group-ing program was an integral part of thegeneral education program. Accordingly,we recommend that in developing a giftedprogram and the staff development thataccompanies it, the connection of the gift-ed program to the general education pro-gram should be considered and includegeneral education whenever possible.Another important consideration for mov-ing a program forward as it is implement-ed (for we all can point to a new programthat was doomed at the onset) is for thoseinvolved to acknowledge that with a newprogram will come problems, and to agree

to work together on the problems tostrengthen (not kill) the program. Finally,in beginningiprogram implementation, 1;professional criteria need to be establishedfor the individuals who will teach in theprogram. We suggest that these criteria bedeveloped and agreed to by a representa-tive committee and then communicatedwith all staff. Professional developmentplanning and opportunities can then assistinterested individuals in meeting thepro-fessional criteria set for the program.

Once a new program has beenimplemented, it needs suppprt (step 5).Quite simply we found the most effec-tive means of supporting the new pro-gram was through staff development andthat the way to determine what staffdevelopment to offer was to simply askthe teachers. To enhance efforts to con-nect general education and gifted educa-tion, we suggest offering opportunities toattend staff development related to thegifted program to all interested staff.Another method used in both sites tofacilitate professional development andconversations included scheduling meet-ings for gifted education teachers. Suchmeetings can facilitate conversationamong gifted education teachers who arein different buildings or grade levels.They learn from each other and discusscommon concems and issues related tothe gifted program. Also scheduled weremeetings of gifted and general educationpersonnel (e.g., by grade level or team)which facilitated conversations about theprogram and its relationship to generaleducation and helped to reinforce theconcept that the teacher of the gifted is abuilding or grade level resource. In therural site, several teachers explained howmuch they had learned from the clusterteacher at their grade level, and some ofthis learning took place during thescheduled meeting times. Each programalso offered regional, state, and nationalstaff development opportunities. Wesuggest that building into the plan suchopportunities will help foster continuedgrowth among staff who may have"done it all" locally. In our clusterschools, staff who attended state andnational workshops brought these expe-riences back to school and to their col-leagues, and in doing so helped toprovide a broadened perspective of gift-ed education at the local level.

The sixth and final step that weT suggest for consideration is

maintenance and growth. Once a pro-gram is implemented and runningsmoothly, one might be tempted to leaveit alone, however, we found that success

requires deliberate and continued main-tenance. We suggest continued supportefforts described in step 5, while addingorientation and conversations for newfaculty to facilitate their understandingof the program and their support. Evalu-ation, action research, and sharing thefindings are effective means of keepingprogram quality high. Teachers in thestudy sites presented several data-basedsessions on their programs at state andnational venues, thus building both rep'u-

tation and ownership. To entice them toagree to present their knowledge andpractices, we required that those whowanted to attend a state or national con-ference for a second time must submit aproposal to present a session. We alsobelieve that the evaluation must befocused on outcomes for all students andteachers (not just the gifted), and bydoing this the program can be strength-ened, justified, and seen as a integralpart of the school..Once evaluations ofprogram effects on students and teachersare conducted, results need to be dissem-inated and publicized locally. Finally,we suggest continuing to ask the teach-ers what they need'and then respondwith appropriate resources, professionaldevelopment, and support services; con-tinuing to connect the program to themission of the school and asking whatelse can be done to help all studentsreach their potentials and become life-long learners in a diverse democracy.Jtis our hope that these sugges-

tions can serve as guidelines forothers who want to develop strong giftededucation programs that continue togrow and evolve over time. The intent isfor others to take these steps and usethose that are applicable as they developtheir own long-term professional devel-opment plans when implementing a newprogram. We believe that these generalsteps might work with any program, butare confident that they will work whenimplementing cluster grouping.

As noted by Tomlinson and Calla-han (1992), Renzulli (1994), Reis andGentry (1998), and the IJ. S.Departmentof Education (1993), the use of giftededucation "know-how" has the potentialto improve general education practices.The rural cluster grouping programinvestigated by Gentry (1999) wasdesigned to simultaneously address theneeds of high achieving students and theneeds of other students. As a result ofthis connection with the general educa-tion program, professional developmentopportunities in gifted education weremade available to all staff, and dialogue

between teachers of the high achievingcluster students and the rest of the staffwas encouraged. As a result all teachers(n = 14) received professional develop-ment in gifted education strategies andreported using these strategies in theirclassrooms with all of their students; evi-dence of this use is presented in Table 1.Teacher 5D explained that she startedusing strategies that she learned fromteacher 5A who taught advanced stu-dents: "It taught the other kids a lot of

Spring, 2004, RoeperReview/153

things, and many of the lower kids want-ed to be involved because of the highachiever's work, so more studentsbecame involved in more advancedwork." Teacher 5A summarized thisconcept when she related a situation thathad occurred in her classroom:

I used the same materials that Iused with what we were callingthe gifted and talented kids, andI adjusted my evaluation andmy approach to teaching. Whenwe came to evaluation time Idiscovered that the kids whowere not classified as G/T hadmade tremendous strides intheir academics and growth.One girl in particular I remem-ber because I was so astoundedshe had gained 3 years' growthon her test at the end of theyear. So it really convinced methat the strategies that we usedwith GIT kids are good for allkids, and I use those strategiesin all my classes. I'm a realbeliever in it.S imilar reactions were recorded inS the suburban district. Parents of

gifted students often questioned staffregarding "cluster activities." An experi-enced cluster teacher reported:

I have had a number of parentscall this fall and ask when was Igoing to be introducing the

cluster challenges. I explainedto them that I had been engag-ing the cluster students withchallenging experiences sincethe beginning of the schoolyear. I had posed questions athigh levels. I have assignedprojects to the whole class thathad enough depth to challengeall my students. I remindedthem of assignments that hadcome home and depended ontheir efforts to support theirchild to get it done well. I waschallenging the cluster kids andthe rest of the class, as well!

Cluster teachers requested that the dis-trict coordinator include in a fall parentcommunication information about strate-gies they use in their classrooms. Anexcerpt from this letter follows:

The cluster teachers plan activi-ties of a progressively challeng-ing nature. These learningactivities may be considered"instead of" rather than "inaddition to" the regular curricu-lum. We suggest to teachers

that it can be interpreted as not"more of the same" but some-thing "instead." For example,instead of answering a numberof low-level comprehensionquestions at the end of a storythe student may be asked todescribe the story's theme andanalyze how it could apply tohis/her own life. In another sit-uation, cluster teachers maypretest their students on thecontent of the math unit to becovered during the next twoweeks. Students who demon-strate mastery of that contenton the pretest might then bedirected towards an indepen-dent research study facilitatedby a teacher. In some class-rooms the teacher may design alesson with sufficient depth andbreadth to challenge all ofhis/her students. In some casesstudents might be acceleratedthrough a portion of the cur-riculum. In other situations,teachers may decide to providean enrichment unit that extendsthe learning into higher levelsand newer horizons.These strategies may be used inany subject area with just thecluster students, a mixture ofcluster students and other stu-

dents, or the whole class. Theplans may be shared with otherteachers.

T nlike the classrooms describedlJ by Archambault et al., (1993)

where there was little differentiation,and observed by Goodlad (1984), whereformal teacher-directed instruction andlittle student choice were the norm, andWestberg, Archambault, Dobyns, andSalvin (1993) where seatwork and drillswere common, the classrooms in theseschools were characterized by a varietyof challenging activities and variedinstructional strategies. Renzulli (1994)noted that the practice in many schoolsof diagnosing and remediating weak-nesses should be replaced with a talentdevelopment approach to enrichmentlearning and teaching that recognizesstudent interests, strengths, and talentsas a basis for their education. In theseschools, integrating the cluster groupingprogram with the general education pro-gram seemed to affect all teachers andstudents in the school. The clustergrouping school teachers applied manystrategies from gifted education to their

daily teaching, something that might nothave happened had professional devel-opment in gifted education beenreserved only for the teachers of the highachieving students. The implication isthat all staff, and consequently all stu-dents, can benefit from inservice con-cerning the use of gifted educationstrategies. Therefore, schools should becareful not to limit their professionaldevelopment in gifted education to justthose teachers who work with identifiedgifted students. By offering more teach-ers opportunities to learn and to applygifted education know-how, perhaps tal-ent can be developed in more students inour schools.

A nother important aspect ofthese efforts is that although

both districts took different paths con-cerning their professional developmentplans, each had a plan and continuedefforts and ongoing professional devel-opment. This provides support for thenotion that teachers are not "trained,"but that professional development is acontinual effort that ought to be person-alized to meet the needs of the teachersand the district in which they teach. Noone program of professional develop-ment will work for everyone, therefore acomprehensive and emerging staffdevelopment plan can help to meet thediverse needs of individual teachers(Dettmer & Landrum, 1998).

Finally, one important point thatwarrants emphasis is the informal aspectof professional development. As in therural school, simply having a teacher ateach grade level was a source of infor-mal, but ongoing, staff developmentconcerning gifted education and strate-gies for meeting individual needs of stu-dents. Conversations in the staff loungeconcerning teaching, learning, and stu-dents are powerful sources of learningand sharing among faculty members,and expertise in the area of gifted andtalented education among some mem-bers of a faculty can serve as a resourceto other members of the same staff.

Limitations

This article describes professionaldevelopment practices that occurred intwo schools that implemented and usedcluster grouping models successfullyover many years. Inherent in this type ofreport are several limitations. First, manythings other than professional develop-ment influence the success or failure of aprogram. In other words, we cannot

154/Roeper Review, Vol. 26, No. 3

attribute the success of the programsentirely to the professional developmentpractices described herein. However, dueto the similarities of practices andlongevity of the programs, we feel confi-dent that professional development wasone key component to the implementa-tion, growth, and success of the programsin each site. Therefore, sharing thesepractices with others might serve toenhance program implementation andplanning and ultimately might lead toconclusive data concerning what worksin different places when striving to

implement a gifted education program ina general education school. This accountis a starting place, not a conclusion. Fur-ther study is warranted as we strive tofully understand the effects of formal andinfornal professional development onprogram implementation and success.

REFERENCESArchambault, F. X., Westberg, K., Brown, S. B., Hallmark,

B. W., Emmons, C. L., & Zhang, W. (1993). Regularclassroom practices with gifted students: Results of anational survey of classroom teachers. Storrs, Cr:National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.

Brown, S. W., Archambault, F. X., Zhang, W., Westberg, K.(1995, Spring). Follow-up study of the interactioneffects on the classroom practices survey. NRCCGTNewbsletter. 6-9.

Clark. B. (1997). Groving up gifted (5 ed.). Upper Saddle,NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Dettmer, P., & Landrum, M. (1998). Background of staffdevelopmcnt. In P. Dettmer & M. Landrum (Eds.), Staffdevelopment: The key to effective giftedprogranis: Aservice publication of the National Associationfor Gift-ed Children (pp. 9-17). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Feldhusen,J. F. (1991). Saturday and summer programs. InN. Colangelo, & G.A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of giftededucation (pp. 197-208). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Fullan, M. (1991). The newv meaning of educational change.New York Teachers College Press.

Gagne, F. (1995). From giftedncss to talent: A developmen-tal model and its impact on the language of the field.Roeper Reviewv, 18, 103-111.

Gentry, M. L. (1996). Cluster grouping: An investigation ofstudent achievement, identification, and classroom prac-tices. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University ofConnecticut, Storm, Cr.

Gentry, M. (1999). Promoting student achievement andexemplary classroom praotices through cluster group-ing: A research-based alternative to heterogeneotts ele-

ineiltaty classrooms (Research Monograph 99138).Storm. CT: University of Connecticut, NationalResearch Center on the Gifted and Talented.

Gentry, M., & Keilty, B. (1998, November). Cluster group-ing: A longitudinal look at student identification andachievement trends in nvo school districts. Paper pre-sented at the annual convention of the National Associa-tion for Gifted Children, Louisville, Kentucky.

Gentry, M., & Owen, S.V. (1999). An investigation of totalschool flexible cluster grouping on identification,achievement, and classroom practices. Gifted ChildQuarrerly, 43, 224-243.

Goodlad, J. 1. (1984). A place called school. New York.McGmw Hill.

Grissom, P. (1989). Evaluation of the modified enrichmenttriad second year pilot. Detroit: Detroit Public Schools,Research and Evaluation Department.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry.Newbury Park. CA: Sage.

Michigan Department of Education. (1994, August). 1992-93Bulletin 1014: Michigan K-12 school districts ranked byselectedfinancial data. Lansing, Ml: Author.

Minnesota Departmcnt of Education.(1982). The cluster pro-gramfor gifted elementary students. St. Paul, MN:Author.

Nicholson C. L., & Hibpshman, T. L. (1991). Slosson intelli-gence test-revised. East Aurora, NY: Slosson Educa-tional Publishers.

Reis, S. M., & Gentry, M. (1998). The application of enrich-ment clusters to teachers' classroom practices. Journalfor the Education of the Gifted 21(3), 310-334.

Renzulli, J. S. (1977). The enrichment triad modeL Mans-field Center, CT: Creative Leaming Press.

Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Reexamininga definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60(3), 180-184, 261.

Renzulli, J. S. (1994). Schoolsfor talent development: Acomprehensive planfor total school improvement.Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Leaming Press.

Renzulli,J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1997). The schoolivide enrich-ment model: A comprehensive planfor edutcationalexcellence (2i ed.). Mansfield Center, CT: CreativeLeaming Press.

Senge, P. (1991). The fifth discipline: The art and disciplineof the learning organization. New York: Doubleday.

Smutny, J. F., Walker, S. Y., & Meckstroth, E. A. (1997).Teaching young gifted children in the regutar ciass-room: Identfying, nurturing and challenging ages 4-9.Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit Press.

Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitativeresearch: Grounded theory procedures and techniques.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Tomlinson, C. A., & Callahan, C. M. (1992). Contributionsof gifted education to general education in a time ofchange. Gifted Child Quarterly. 36, 183-189.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of EducationalResearch and Improvement. (1993). National excel-lence: A casefor developing America's talent. Washing-ton, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Westberg, K. L., Archambault, F. X., Dobyns, S. M., &Salvin, T. J. (1993). An observationalstudy of instruc-tional and curricular practices used vith gif ed and tal-ented students in regular classroonms (ResearchMonograph 93104). Stofm, CT: The.National ResearchCenter on the Gifted and Talented.

Spring, 2004, Roeper Review/I 55

AppendixStaff Development for Successful Program Selection, Implementation, Growth, and Success:

A Six-Step Outline Based on What Worked in the Cluster Grouping Sites

Step 1: Conversations1. What are our beliefs?2. What is our mission?3. What are our goals?

Step 2: Research1. What further information do we need to make programming decisions?2. Where can we get information on those things that we're considering?

Step 3: Choose a course of action1. Develop a long-term plan.2. Include provisions for ongoing staff development and evaluation to inform practice.

Step 4: Implementation1. What do we need to know to get started (crucial introductory information from which to build)?

Develop an awareness inservice based on the answer to this question.2. Is what we're planning aligned with our beliefs/mission/goals?3. Are we flexible yet defensible?4. Does the identification system align with the program?5. What data will we keep to evaluate whether what we're doing is working?6. Have we considered the relationship of the gifted and general education programs?7. Do we agree that with new programs there will be problems, and have we agreed to work together to solve problems that adse to strengthen the program?8. Do we have professional critera for individuals who will teach in the gifted program?

Step 5: Supporting the new program Initiative1. Ask the teachers what they need, then respond by offerng it.2. Provide opportunities for all interested faculty and staff.3. Schedule regular conversations/meetings for (1) gifted education personnel (2) gifted and general education personnel (e.g., by team or grade level).4. Include opporunities for professional development from the region, state, and nation to provide broad perspectives.

Step 6: Maintenance and growth1. Continue support activities.2. Move to the next level through evaluation, action research, and shanng of knowledge.3. Focus evaluation and study on outcomes for all (not just gifted program children) children and teachers.4. Develop panel discussions for state/national conferences where practitioners share their knowledge and practices.5. Use the 'if we've sent you once you need to submit a proposal to present or showcase something you do well" approach to address repeated

requests to attend state/national conventions. This will create local 'stars" and most importantly brng recognition to your people and program.6. Publicize the program results and effects on students and teachers.7. Ask the teachers what they need and respond with approprate resources, professional development opportunities, and support services.8. Build in orentation and conversations for new faculty integration.9. Ask what else can be done to address the mission of helping every student reach his/her fullest potential, become lifelong leamers, respect and

honor diversity and repeat the process.

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

TITLE: Rural and Suburban Cluster Grouping: Reflections onStaff Development as a Component of Program Success

SOURCE: Roeper Rev 26 no3 Spr 2004WN: 0410800833006

The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and itis reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article inviolation of the copyright is prohibited. To contact the publisher:http://www.roeper.org/

Copyright 1982-2004 The H.W. Wilson Company. All rights reserved.