# data[].attributes.body
I feel there has been a shift recently in the student profiles we are focusing on. There is much discussion on how to uplift the B20 segment of our student cohort, resulting in new policies geared towards increasing social mobility and social capital. With this being the national agenda, the trickle down effects into schools also has much of our resources channeled to support this group, especially in terms of manpower allocation to SEN and LPL programmes (e.g., SDR, RRP, expansion of LSM into P3 and P4). My observation is where once we had sufficient teachers (and students!) deployed to cover E2K across P4-P6, we are now strained for manpower, also exacerbated by shrinking HAL student groups. In this climate, juxtaposed against MOE's SPACES movement and workload reduction, how do we manage our HAL programmes and workload of our HAL teachers? It really is a challenge in school ._.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Problems

Not able to sustain participation rate and interest of students

Teacher workload is too much

Team includes only new and inexperienced teachers and no experienced teacher

2. Assumptions

Possibly the way students are selected. Students selected based on scores and not by student choice.

Inexperienced teachers may not be equipped to take on these classes or handle the content for these learners. Enthusiastic doesn’t mean they can manage or see through the programme.

Assumption on HA students is that they can be self-motivated and self-directed.

Communications with parents not clear.

Near DSA parents don’t want ‘additional’ things for child to focus on aside from DSA.

3. AFI

Have one experienced teacher to anchor the team to guide the inexperienced teachers.

Give students choices to choose based on interest. Parents can have conversations with their child based on the selection.

Can have a selection process first. After which, send an invitation.

Teacher deployment should not include BT. Instead, those equipped with skills to manage HAL.

Communication to parents to include rationale for programme, specify the time frame.

# data[].attributes.body
1) Problems:

Selection process not sound and selection criteria is not clear / transparent.

Teachers' deployment (Are BTs really suitable?)

PD of the deployed teachers (Are the teachers competent to train the HALs?)

Unclear coms with stakeholders (parents and students)

Insufficient consideration of the teachers' workload thus resulting in fatigue in teachers.

2) Assumptions:

Assume that students will be interested in what they have designed for HALs

Young and enthusiastic teachers are passionate and can engage the students and handle the heavier load (as they have less teaching periods).

3) AFGs:

Selection process to be reviewed to include more identification platforms and instruments. (E.g interviews, portfolio)

To consider students' aptitudes and interests.

Systemic reviews of the school programmes, esp for HALs

Better communications with the students and also parents to keep them updated about the number of sessions, what they can look forward to explore, the showcase/sharing platforms with their peers or community

Training or mentoring for the teachers

# data[].attributes.body
A) Problems identified

Lack of transparency on the selection of HAL students for the programmes

The ranking of the students according to the results of Math, EL and Science respectively

Did not consider the interest of the teachers and the learning disposition of the students in the different subject areas

Did not consider the readiness of the teachers who are conducting the subject enrichment classes

B) Assumptions made

Assumption that the students who are selected for the respective programmes are interested in the area of subjects and have the abilities to excel in the area respectively

Assuming that the teachers are willingly to take on these groups of HAL students

Assuming that these teachers are willing to take up the increase workload on top of their CCA etc.

C) Areas for improvements

Having a clear framework on how the selection of the students are made, taking into account the interest of the students and their learning dispositions

Allow for students to be in more than one programme (i.e. Both Math and Science)

To buddy experienced teachers to the beginning teachers so that they could be guided on how to carry out the programmes better

To offload the teachers (such as taking them out from their CCA)

# data[].attributes.body
(a) Problems faced

Identification of suitable teachers

Considering the workload of the teachers selected

Ranking of students (according to subject or overall results) and deciding which HAL program to put them in

(b) Assumptions made

Students who scored well can do well in enrichment classes - high progress does not mean high ability

BTs have the energy and passion to teach HAL programs - not sure if they have undergone any trainings

(c) AFI

Select teachers who have the passion and experience (trained) in teaching HAL

Consider students' interest and giftedness before deciding which HAL program to put them in

more robust system to identify students for HAL programs other than base on scores - interviews, student disposition/aptitude checklist

Look into the workload of teachers (after school commitment) to avoid any burn out

# data[].attributes.body
Problems faced by the team

1. Parental objections and difference in opinions

2. Selection of teachers, number of teachers too few? Consideration for BTs workloads (not overwhelming them)

3. Selection of pupils - rationale, ranking methodology?

4. Grouping - criteria for allocation into E, M and S

5. Limitations in terms of timeslots for students

6. Declining participation rate... pivoting to DSA related competitions - why is this so?

Assumptions made by decision makers

1. BTs assumed to be able to take on additional workload - assumed to be capable to plan and conduct HAL lessons - what are the grounds for this assumption

2. Students assumed to be best in Math (top 25) followed by English and Science

3. No consideration given for their interest levels or relative competencies in other subjects

4. What about students who have multiple areas of talent/giftedness?

5. Engagement of parents seem to be lacking - parents do not seem to have been consulted

6. More data could be gathered about student needs and interests before implementation - study, FGDs etc.

Areas for improvement

1. Gather more data about student profiles, readiness, needs etc

2. More process and structure - thought and deliberation should be given to tighten

3. Better engage parents - inform them about the rationale and canvas support and different perspectives through FGDs and engagement sessions

4. Provide platforms for non IP subjects down the line after structures are in place

5. Provide training/OJT for teachers assigned - perhaps select from those with passion/interest as a first cut to anchor

# data[].attributes.body
1.       The problems faced by the talent development team in Vision Primary School,

a.       Validity of selection (1 source – EYE grades)

i.    Top 25 might not be the best performing for Math also. Likewise, 26-50th might not be the best performing for EL, and the 51-75th might not be the best performing for Science.

ii.      High progress does not mean high ability.

b.       Reliability of selection:

i.      1 source of data, captured at 1 point in time (EYE)

c.       Sustainability of selection – interest of students not considered.

d.       Resourcing issues –

i.      high workload placed on teachers

ii.      Teacher profile: BTs need to be provided with a lot of support (adequate training or desirable student-teacher ratio?) Are they the best profile of teachers to be in charge of such enrichment programmes? Could there be a buddy system i.e. experienced teachers pair up with BT?

2.       the assumptions made by the decision makers, and

a.       high progress = high ability = interest in stretch programmes.

b.       BTs

i.      They are well-equipped.

ii.      They are energetic and hence would welcome such challenging deployment.

3.       areas for improvement.

a.       Validity and reliability could be improved – multi-factor selection captured at multiple occasions.

i.      HAL checklist, results, subject teacher input, student interviews, lesson observations.

b.       Sustainability of selection

i.      can consider peer or self-nomination.

ii.      Help students see meaning in the programmes by fusing / integrating them into the formal curriculum.

iii.      Better communication with parents and other stakeholders.

c.       Resourcing issues:

i.      Relooking at teacher workload and deployment issues.

# data[].attributes.body
(a) Problems faced by the team:

Teachers feeling overwhelmed due to heavy workload

Parents may be directing their demands and questions to them

Drop in student's participation

(b) Assumptions made by decision-makers:

Getting good grades mean that students have the readiness and interest to commit to these enrichment programmes

Selected teachers want to and are able to conduct effective lessons

(c) AFIs:

Students to choose what they are interested in

Teachers to be trained and get equipped with the knowledge to conduct lessons. Mentorship will be helpful to younger teachers too.

Check if the teachers can be offloaded

Better communication with parents. To include rationale, guidelines etc

# data[].attributes.body
Problem

#1: New teachers are not coping well with the workload

#2: Inadequate Comms to Parents which caused misunderstandings

#3: Declining participation rate

Assumptions:

#1: New teachers have more free time as they are offloaded

#2: Grouping of students not based on interest or aptitude

#3: Parents know more about Olympaid compared to E2K

AFI:

#1: Include ET in the group for expertise

# data[].attributes.body
1. problems faced - poor attendance, teachers were fatigue, students opted to go for other programmes that would boost their DSA portfolio.

2. assumptions made by the decision maker - (i) they assumed that students wanted to participate in any of the 3 programmes (they were not given a choice). (ii) the young and energetic teachers would be able to contribute positively to the programme.

3. AFI - (i) students to state their preference and allocated accordingly. (ii) emphasize a minimum attendance requirement to ensure the programme benefits worthy students. (iii) provision for teachers, if they are taking HAL programme, they can be excused from CCA duty. (iv) briefing for parents before commencement of programme, to reiterate the objectives and get their support/commitment. (v) experienced teachers to guide/mentor the new teachers.

# data[].attributes.body
AFI

School could take students interests and aptitudes into consideration when allocating them to the programme. This would also increase the participating and retention rate across the weeks.

To manage teachers' workload and assignments in totality to ensure a balanced workload

To provide training and mentorship to young teachers if not already trained to ensure that they have the skills needed to handle the responsibility of teaching HAL students.

School can have clear rationale on selection guideline with student centricity and theoretical undergirding in order to ensure professional communication with stakeholders (parents)

Deconflict school scheduling to ensure whitespace for the students to attend and commit to these HAL programmes to avoid dropout due to need to commit to other programmes (CCA etc)

Clarify objective of programmes and what students can gain from it. A delivery or goal that they can work towards.

# data[].attributes.body
(1) teachers are overwhelmed by the workload while students are losing interest (shift towards DSA-related - useful sessions); parents do not see the intentions of the "additional" sessions / programme too

(2) top students go by math/creative writing/science - not placed according to their gifts / interests; teacher readiness (BT load)

(3) processes for identification of HAL / design of HAL programme to consider individual student's strength/interest, parent engagement, task force / deployment of teachers to look into this

# data[].attributes.body
Problems:

Proper training

Selection of teachers (although enthusiastic, maybe they need time to settle their core work)

Students - needs and interest rather than assigned by using cut-offs and banding (perhaps also what do they consider according to the banding: Band acc to Math? EMS? This would impact the talents in the class and thus to cut-off students accordingly as they did is an area of concern) This perhaps has resulted in the decline in participation.

Assumptions:

Children will feel good about being chosen and thus be committed.

Being in the top 2 classes, ss will be able to cope and excel in this

Trs able to cope as they are enthusiastic and that the guide provided will be enough for them to carry out the programme.

AFI:

Better communication with parents

Speak to the students rather then assigned

Deployment of teachers (experienced trs perhaps). Looking holistically at the workload of the teachers.

Structures and processes put in in identifying the students (other considerations other than grades)

# data[].attributes.body
1)

Identification was purely based on academic results

Getting beginner teacher to conduct programme (they should be given an opportunity to ease into teaching instead of having to cope with this additional load they are given)

Why top 25 given Math (rationale?)

Drop in participation rate over the weeks

2)

Young teachers are energetic and have alot of creative ideas

Academic Performance = High Ability Learners

School would like to focus more on Math hence top 25 were allocated Math

Student profile: highly competent in Math

3)

Need a mentor or senior teacher to guide the beginner teachers

Improved selection criteria

Improved Communication to Parents (rationale behind programme etc.)

# data[].attributes.body
Problem:

*Students are not assigned based on interest but purely based on results. There weren't any interviews conducted. They should look at students' dispositions, teachers' feedback before assigning. Teachers to streamline the program with DSA.

Assumption:

*Young and enthusiastic teachers took were overly taxed and they may not have enough experience to be in-tuned with the lesson preparation. 1) Check if the teachers can be offloaded in any ways. 2) Senior teachers can be roped in to help. Should not be relying on teachers with more energy as it will not work in the long run when they run out of steam.

*Communication to 2 groups of parents can be better. Help the parents to see the value and benefit of long-term of the program. Help the other group of parents to understand how the program selects the students.

# data[].attributes.body
1. The team assumed the top 25 students are best in maths, they were not stretched in english or science.

2. The team assumed that the teachers were able to conduct the program, could have considered offloading

3. Did not consider a mentor for the teachers, teachers may not have the training to conduct the program.

4. Objectives of the program need to be communicated with the students and the parents. The outcomes of the programs can also be shared with the stakeholders.

5. AFIs - send the teachers for training, to enhance their expertise, we have to offload teachers who are deployed for the program.

6. AFIs- Identification of students, not just based on results, have to consider the aptitude and also teacher's recommendation.

# data[].attributes.body
Will you recommend schools to band the students by Math grades in class?

Is there any data to show/support that banding students by Math grades or having mixed ability classes produces better results for Math, or there is no difference?

# data[].attributes.body
1. What talent development provisions are currently available in your school? Why are these chosen? How are they organised?

E2K (Math and Sci)

Olympiad training

Reading Circles

HMT starting at P3

P5 Creative Writing Programme (during curriculum time)

Most are organised by levels, usually for P3 - P5. Most are programmes provided by MOE or GEB except for the P5 Creative Writing which is done in-house for most schools.

2. What models (if any) were used to guide the planning and implementation of those provisions? If no model was used, what guiding principles were considered instead?

Use models given by GEB branch (HAL Characteristics Checklist) --> Difficulties in identifying the students even with checklist to minimise awkward situations of having to remove the child from HAL.

Results are also used as a guiding principle --> issues with this is as mentioned the student can be high progress but not of high ability.

Teacher recommendation --> issue is that this can be subjective and child might not display the HAL characteristics in another setting

GEP results --> those who get into round 1 are included into the HAL programmes

3. Which models discussed here can be applied in your school's future plans for talent development? How do you see it/them being used?

Treffinger Model - Used in most of the schools in our group

Renzulli’s 3 Rings - We would consider using this model instead as it focuses more on character traits and also the student's interest.

Interesting point that we would perhaps consider in future: We are aware that some schools select a maximum of two areas for HAL students so that students are not overwhelmed by having to attend various HAL programmes especially those that are after school.

# data[].attributes.body
1. E2K, W&W, RC

2. Mainly LoS, or no models used

3. Combination of LoS with SEM for entry considerations

# data[].attributes.body
Question 1

English - Wits & Words & in-house programmes

Math - E2K, Olympiad Training, mini projects

Science - E2K, Olympiad Training

All - Design Thinking (Innovation)

Students are selected based on the academic results, GEP list, aptitude checklist, teacher recommendation. Students might be selected for multiple enrichment, scheduling (across the 4 terms) will need to take place so that they will still be given the opportunities to develop their talents and not over-tax them at the same time.

Question 2

There is no specific model that our schools adhere to but Treffinger (LoS) seem to be the more prevalent one.

Question 3

We hope to apply the Treffinger Levels of Service more intentional in the planning of our HAL programme. We feel that the Renzulli model is more inclusive.

# data[].attributes.body
Tier 4 - planning for students to participate in international competitions -> not as easy for neighbourhood schs.

For neighbourhood schs, teachers can consider working on individual HALs identified from previous tests

# data[].attributes.body
Most schools have similar model (i.e. LoS model). Most of the schools have programmes for the whole school and some targeted programmes such as E2K, Debates, creative writing, Olympiad competition.

Selection of students is through GEP data, E2K checklist and students' results.

Some challenges we faced:

Time. Unable to fit in these programmes for students due to the many programmes in school.

# data[].attributes.body
1) Adapted the various features in the different models.

2) Identification of HALs using the checklists

3) Deconflicting between the HODs so that students have different HAL talent development opportunities especially when these opportunities are running at the same time.

4) Examples of talent development plans (current and future)

E2K with student leadership as CCA or possibly ALP/LLP for the 3rd tier (selected students) for talent development

E2k within HAL upper pri Math / Sci lessons (intentional integration) encouraging responses in the piloting programme

Different enrichments to cater to students' passion and interest

Identification through the GEP namelists shared with school

# data[].attributes.body
1. Talent development provisions available:

1. GEB supported eg. EL reading circle, creative writing, debate; E2K Math and Science

2. Math and Science Olympiad, trained by external vendors.

2. Chosen by a combination of GE list + academic results + GE attributes list (for some schools) Order of priority defers as well - eg. take part in 1 or multiple programmes? Which programme has priority?

3. LoS Model / Schoolwide Enrichment Model - eg. EL enrichment programme for a small group of 30 students, then an even smaller group of around 5 to be sent for debate training.

# data[].attributes.body
HAL Programmes: E2K; Olympiad; Super Journal; Debate; Maker's Space

Most of our schools have yet to adopt a model; selection based on EYE, HAL checklist & Teachers' recommendation

Questions discussed:

1) revolving door strategy?

2) evaluation of the effectiveness of the programmes

3) how do we respond to parents' queries (teachers' observation)

4) how often do we engage our students due to limited resources

# data[].attributes.body
1.    What Talent Development provisions are currently available in your school? Why are these chosen? How are they organized?

·       CWP

·       Reading Circles

·       E2K

·       Olympiad

·       In-house school-based programme

2.    What models (if any) were used to guide the planning and implementation of those provisions? If no model was used, what guiding principles were considered instead?

·       Do not really use a particular model

·       Teacher’s evaluation of pupil / loosely based on some elements of a model

·       HAL list

·       Academic results

3.    Which model(s) discussed here can be applied in your school’s future plans for Talent Development? How do you see it/them being used?

·       Renzulli's Three-Ring Conception of Giftedness – without even knowing – we probably already loosely based our evaluation on this

# data[].attributes.body
Q1:

All schools: Math & Science E2K & Olympiad (selection based on results / P3 GEP results / HAL Checklist / Tr recommendation/ E2K for HAL classes)

Springdale: Acad / PAM & CCA/ Leadership development tiers

MA & SC STRETCH Programme at P3 & 4 for selected students (non-E2K Olympiad/ results at next lower band than E2K)

SVPS EL: Reading circles advanced to debate (selection based on results & tr recommendations)

Q2:

Most schools: Level of Service model

SCGS: Each student to focus on 2 areas to develop to avoid burn-out. Competitions based on sign-up.

Springdale: applies the Level of Service model in CCAs, PAM and Leadership

Q3:

To look into non-academic areas

# data[].attributes.body
1. TKPS uses Treffinger's Model. HAL is about 10-20% of each cohort. P4 is within curriculum and P5 is after-school programme. They will be evaluating their effectiveness in the near future.

WAPS - allows students to take up to 2 HAL programmes. All are after-school programmes such as writing classes and E2K.

2. UPS used 3 E model.

Tier 1 being Exposure is for every student,

Tier 2 - experience covers 20% of cohort and they will experience selected activities and tasks,

Tier 3 - excellence covers 5-10% cohort and they will be challenged with competitions.

TNPS select students based on 85% cutoff point plus teachers' recommendation. E2K is compulsory and there are electives for Tier 3 (beyond curriculum).

3. TKPS will be looking for checklist to evaluate effectiveness, covering the 3 questions - Are these activities that every child should be doing? would like to do? and is capable of doing?

# data[].attributes.body
Most groups do not follow a particular model. With programmes for E2K offered to HAL based on GEP list and academic grades cutoff.

Some face issues when students are not interested and display challenging behaviour during the session.

Recommendation by peers to manage this include

1) teacher's recommendation

2) SEN support to HAL students with special needs + work with parents

3) provide milestone checks to ensure programme suitability

Good practices:

1) Track participation of students across the years to ensure continuity

# data[].attributes.body
Q1. Generally, the students are banded into the different classes/groupings based on their Math results.

In addition, some schools used an in-house testing and HAL checklist to determine the HAL students.

Q2. There is no framework and we only tried to select students who are more inclined to the area that they are strong in, on top of the curriculum.

Q3. LoS model (Levels of Service) : This could be applied across all subjects and all levels.

# data[].attributes.body
1. There are no specific considerations in the selection of our provisions. Most of them are 'inherited' - Wits and Words, Creative Writing for P5s, some schools identify through HAL checklist and others by internal banding of class. Some pull out students and others band by class for conduct of enrichment/competition training. Workshops for teachers are conducted to level up their competencies in conducting such sessions. Some schools have tiered approaches (Treffinger's Model - selected students for various TD programmes across the subjects eg Tier 1 - E2K, Tier 2 - Stretch/acceleration Programme, Tier 3 - Competitions). Tracking of students are done across subjects for some schools - introduction of integrated programme like "Global Scholar Programme". Some schools target the interest levels of students and not merely their aptitude or potential. Some schools also employ checklists to identify student interests/commitment levels and parental support.

2. Treffinger's Levels of Service seems to the prevalent model used across the various schools but some schools do not adhere to a specific model at this initial stage.

3. We are interested in more deliberate application of Treffinger's Model as well as Gagne's model. We like the revolving door model - the ability for multiple points of entry and the concept of the soft exit allows a more flexible and organic system of talent identification and development. The challenge is to integrate the requirements and targets of the various departments. Levels of integration demonstrated by the GEP may be a challenge for mainstream schools.

# data[].attributes.body
Science and Math E2K, Math Olympiad, Reading Circles as after school enrichment programmes

Banded classes based on results, investigative tasks and differentiated worksheets for within curriculum provisions

4E approach - Excel, Enrich, Enable, Enhance. Defined enrichment pathways from P4. Student choice and voice (Holy Innocents)

Selection based on academic results (Where exactly do their strengths lie?)

Interviews as a second cut (Students' voice)

# data[].attributes.body
School framework

core curriculum (layer 1) + differentiated programme (layer 2)

Model for programme design (e.g., Bloom's taxanomy)

Team in school for Pupil Talent development

Mostly, programmes are teacher-run, students are identified based on fitness to purpose (e.g., verbal talents, contest-based)

-development of cross-discipline programmes

# data[].attributes.body
Question 1

Raffles Girls' Primary: Raffles Fiesta/Raffles Experience Day (whole day event for P4-P6 students, enrichment programmes conducted by PVs and vendors)

Qihua Primary: InnoJoy Festival

E2K Math and Science

Words and Wits

GEB's Creative Writing Programme

Primary Math Project Competition

Question 2

Selection based on Renzulli's enrichment model

P4 EYE results

P3 HAL checklist

Question 3

Levels of Service

Gagne's Differentiated Model

# data[].attributes.body
-GEP (projects), Olympiad Training, E2K

students are selected for various competitions from the pool of identified students

-stretch programme inter-discipline (EL/MA/SC) - students selected based on P2 results (programme conducted in P3) after-school curriculum (end product: presentation)

-CWP

-IVP (P5) as organised by GEP branch (Innovation Programme)

-PMPC (Primary Mathematics Project Competition) selected students

-Appreciating literature programme (Fun with English)

-project work extension (self-directed research)

# data[].attributes.headline
Session 1 Slides: Characteristics of HALs and Talent Dev Models

# data[].attributes.subject
Session 1 Slides: Characteristics of HALs and Talent Dev Models

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Assessment For Learning: The Missing Element For Identifying High Potential in Low Income and Minority Groups
The Schoolwide Enrichment Model (SEM, Renzulli, 1977; Renzulli & Reis, 1985, 1997, 2014) is widely implemented as a both an enrichment program used with academically gifted and talented students and as a magnet theme/enrichment approach for all students. The theme of the SEM is to develop the strengths and talents of all students.

For recent articles and presentations on the SEM, please visit Schoolwide Enrichment Model Articles & Presentations.

The SEM provides enriched learning experiences and higher learning standards for all children through three goals:

developing talents in all children,

providing a broad range of advanced-level enrichment experiences for all students, and

providing advanced follow-up opportunities for young people based on their strengths and interests.

The SEM focuses on enrichment for all students through high levels of engagement and the use of enjoyable and challenging learning experiences that are constructed around students' interests, learning styles, and preferred modes of expression. For current resources on the SEM, please visit SEM Third Edition Resources and Forms.

Separate studies on the SEM have demonstrated its effectiveness in schools with widely differing socioeconomic levels and patterns of program organization. Information about this research is provided in Schoolwide Enrichment Model Research Studies.

The SEM has been implemented in over 4,000 schools across the country and programs using this approach have been widely implemented internationally in Europe, Asia, South and Central America. To learn how to visit an SEM school, please check the SEM Directory Visitation Site.

The most recent research on the SEM has focused on the application of instructional communication technology to enrichment learning and teaching. Information about this Internet based application of the SEM can be found at RenzulliLearning. Individual computer generated student profiles are used as the basis for matching personalized resources from a data bank that contains thousands of carefully selected enrichment resources. These resources and students' electronic portfolios can be used for curriculum planning, differentiating instruction, and individual and small group project based learning.

Don't forget to check out our extensive information on SEM-Reading.
We also offer a free online SEM course several times during the year.
For some brief videos on the SEM, please visit Schoolwide Enrichment Model Movies.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Schoolwide Enrichment Model (SEM) | Renzulli Center for Creativity, Gifted Education, and Talent Development

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Information on Compacting Information on Enrichment ClustersAssessment For Learning: The Missing Element For Identifying High Potential in Low Income and Minority Groups The Schoolwide Enrichment Model (SEM, Renzulli, 1977; Renzulli & Reis, 1985, 1997, 2014) is widely implemented as a both a ...

# data[].attributes.body
1. What talent development provisions are currently available in your school? Why are these chosen? How are they organised?

2. What models (if any) were used to guide the planning and implementation of those provisions? If no model was used, what guiding principles were considered instead?

3. Which models discussed here can be applied in your school's future plans for talent development? How do you see it/them being used?

# data[].attributes.body
1. What talent development provisions are currently available in your school? Why are these chosen? How are they organised?

2. What models (if any) were used to guide the planning and implementation of those provisions? If no model was used, what guiding principles were considered instead?

3. Which models discussed here can be applied in your school's future plans for talent development? How do you see it/them being used?

# data[].attributes.body
1. What talent development provisions are currently available in your school? Why are these chosen? How are they organised?

2. What models (if any) were used to guide the planning and implementation of those provisions? If no model was used, what guiding principles were considered instead?

3. Which models discussed here can be applied in your school's future plans for talent development? How do you see it/them being used?

# data[].attributes.body
1. What talent development provisions are currently available in your school? Why are these chosen? How are they organised?

2. What models (if any) were used to guide the planning and implementation of those provisions? If no model was used, what guiding principles were considered instead?

3. Which models discussed here can be applied in your school's future plans for talent development? How do you see it/them being used?

# data[].attributes.headline
Treffinger's Levels of Service Framework

# data[].attributes.subject
Treffinger's Levels of Service Framework

# data[].attributes.body
Participant: Are there resources/points-of-contact for schools like mine who would like to begin a TD programme?

# data[].attributes.headline
Learn from different schools' experiences implementing HQ-supported HAL provisions

# data[].attributes.subject
Learn from different schools' experiences implementing HQ-supported HAL provisions

# data[].attributes.body
Read on to learn from different schools their experiences enacting Reading Circles, E2K Math and Science. Also take the opportunity to learn more about the Primary Math Project Competition and Math Expert@Work (MEW).

# data[].attributes.headline
Hear from 3 teacher-leaders how their schools stretched their HALs

# data[].attributes.subject
Hear from 3 teacher-leaders how their schools stretched their HALs

# data[].attributes.body
Three teacher-leaders share their schools' differentiated provisions for high-ability learners (HALs), and how they have engaged their HALs' interest and curiosity.

# data[].attributes.headline
Session 3 Slides: Evaluating Programmes for High-Ability Learners

# data[].attributes.subject
Session 3 Slides: Evaluating Programmes for High-Ability Learners

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Evaluating Programmes for High-Ability Learners_KP Seminar 2024_final

# data[].attributes.body
Question from participant 1: Students with SEN can also be HAL, right? Some of these students can be very sensitive and emo, and they might not like challenges. What considerations to take note when we cater to their learning needs ?

Question from participant 2: Some students with [special] learning needs display an ability to understand abstract concepts have difficulties focusing and staying on tasks. How do we gauge if they are gifted?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
WASHINGTON COUNTY ASSOCIATION FOR GIFTED CHILDREN

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Definition of twice exceptional learner from: National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) Twice-Exceptional StudentsWhat’s not often well-known or well-understood is that students who are…