[Ohiogift] Hannah summary of gifted discussion at the State board meeting

[anngift at aol.com]

For anyone interested, here is the Hannah news summary of 9/9/12 and 9/10/12. It is fairly detailed and accurate: 


AchievementCommittee 
Operating Standards for Gifted Rule 
Board member Jones,chairman of the committee, introduced Sue Zake, Executive Director, ODE Officeof Exceptional Children, and Wendy Stoica, Assistant Director, Diverse Learnersfor ODE, who provided an update to the status of the Operating Standards forIdentifying and Serving Gifted Students. The standards are ready for the a fiveyear review process. Stakeholder involvement included the Ohio Association forGifted Children Executive Committee and the Gifted Advisory Group; drafts wereposted for public comment. There have been approximately 30 comments posted sofar, Zake noted.  


The timeline for reviewstates that the Resolution to adopt by the State Board must be completed byJanuary, 2014. 
Proposed revisionsinclude two whole grade screenings for gifted identification, elimination ofratios for gifted service providers and addresses workloadconsiderations.   


Board member Jacobs saidshe’s heard a lot from her constituency regarding a “dumbing down” ofstandards, although she noted that there were some positive comments.  Board member Elshoff asked about the commentsthat were posted on the website. Zake said that generally the “tone is negative.”


Board member Cain said,“I can’t say that I would vote in favor of these standards as they stand rightnow. A gifted coordinator should be someone who knows something about thegifted. The ratios are important, and parents should know how their gifted taxdollars are being spent. Having these regulations in place guarantees theserving of the gifted who should not be shortchanged.”  
President Terharcommented, “We require special education teachers to teach special educationstudents. We should provide the same for the gifted students. Are we behind thecurve in comparison to other states? Is the report card really going to providethe kind of accountability we need for the gifted?” 


Vice President Gunlocksaid, “I’m all for outputs in measuring the standards. 2014-15 will bring theindicator for the gifted on the report card. In my opinion, we do a lousy job with the gifted students; this needs tobe done at the building level. I believe in qualified teachers for gifted, butI’m not sure I believe in the same for coordinators. All I care about is theoutputs. Maybe these schools should take a look at their gifted programs. Ithink we’re on track here, but we need to figure out a way to continuemeasuring the outputs.”  


Cain asked if the GiftedAdvisory group endorsed the draft.  Zakesaid they did not. “The difference is in what was proposed as to what isrequired; issues like ratios, amount of training, and several other concerns.” 


 “Some high poverty districts are receiving Asand Bs with regard to the gifted, so there’s no reason why these other schoolscan’t improve,” Gunlock stated.  


Jones said, “It is myview that we need to move to an output-based model. I ultimately don’t carewhat is leading to the success, I care about the success itself. We have thisinput regime in place, but this system doesn’t work very effectively. We doneed qualified teachers, but I’m not convinced that we need qualifiedcoordinators. The question is what level do we need such qualifications, andI’m open to be persuaded.  Theseregulations do tie the hands of those involved; if they weren’t, we wouldn’twrite them. My hope is that we can do something here in Ohio that isoutput-based that will lead to innovation. What we are doing is not working.” 


Public Participation -- Non-Agenda Items 
Ann Sheldon, executivedirector, Ohio Association for Gifted Children (OAGC), said, “The ODE responseto the poor showing for the gifted is baffling. Instead of increasing thequality of instruction to support gifted children, the new version of the draftfor gifted operating standards effectively eliminates all standards of qualityservice.”  


Sheldon noted  that the following provisions have beeneliminated in the draft:  qualitycriteria for service; caseload restrictions; direct contact time ; giftedcoordinator requirements that relate to the knowledge of gifted education;professional development; reporting of qualified personnel; fundingaccountability requirements; and the provision that allows ODE to reduce fundsfor non-compliant districts. 


“The new philosophy ofODE is to move away from educational inputs toward an outcomes-based system.This is only effective if the following elements are in place:  quality outputs; data collection;transparency; accountability measures; and oversight.”  


“The gifted dashboardthat this board unanimously voted to develop was to have been unveiled thismonth and was to inform the board what elements should be part of the giftedperformance indicator. Unfortunately, ODE never developed it,” she commented. 


Sheldon ask that thedraft be rewritten with regard to the Gifted. 


Cain asked, “Is itenough to test only the outputs for the Gifted Performance Indicator?” Sheldonsaid that the GPI is just one piece and needs expansion.” What we have arestandards that are easily reached, and if you water services down, we reallyquestion the value of the GPI.” 


Cain asked, “If theservice time requirement was removed, how do you think districts would handletheir output?” Sheldon said, “Services are very different now. Writteneducation plans were required for gifted students, although they are reallynothing more than a check-off list. What they found was that services werebeing watered down, i.e., 20 minutes a day counted as service, or one big eventa year counted as service completed.” 


Jones said he suggested,“The gifted community would be well served to identify output structures thatwould be appropriate measures 

to incorporate into Gunlock’s work on outputs.” 


Sheldon said she has noproblem coming with outputs and gave several examples. However, she noted thatthere are many areas that cannot be adequately measured for gifted children,such as social and emotional disconnects. “ I think we need to meet forwardslowly with a mixed input-output system – a happy compromise.”  We need a level of protection like a waiverfor highly performing schools. We have a problem with eliminating all qualityinputs while we are generating the appropriate outputs.   
Collins said he met withthe gifted coordinators from his district. “There needs to be a viable processto identify what needs to be done and then to do it,” he stated. “What was inthe draft was entirely different from what was proposed by the Advisorycommittee. You can’t have outputs without inputs – it doesn’t make any sense.” 
The following parentsand students spoke on behalf of Gifted Education:  Robin Retzler, Beckham Retzler, Keegan Retzler,Angela Grimm, Karen Rumsley, Alicia Sauer, and Joan Ford. 
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osu.edu/pipermail/ohiogift/attachments/20130911/7c7ce31a/attachment.html>