[Ohiogift] What DO we want the outcome measure to look like?

[Rosado Feger, Ana]

Dear Gifted Advocates:

As requested, I contacted our State Board of Education members regarding the gifted operating standards.  I was rather pleasantly surprised to receive a personal response from C. Todd Jones.  I may disagree with his opinion, but I respect him for taking the time to write back twice.

The importance of his challenge, attached below, though, can't be denied.  How DO we define a "good outcome" for our students?  What would we like to see in this measure?

I am not idealistic enough to think that we can create the perfect world for our high-ability kids.  I AM stubborn enough to fight every day for "the best that we can."  But as a pragmatist I can understand the need to define a proper outcome measure.  Before, we had none, now we have a composite for which I have not seen the breakdown.  How is our current measure derived?  I can immediately say that combining all forms of gifted identification into one measure is virtually meaningless, as there are too many confounding factors.

So, I ask that you please help me craft a response to Mr. Jones.  Given the opportunity to craft an outcome measure, what would we want it to look like?

Please keep in mind this does NOT in any way imply that I endorse an abandonment of INPUT standards.  Right now we have no connection between inputs and outputs because inputs (i.e. services)  ARE NOT REQUIRED, a point I have made to Mr. Jones.  THAT is what makes the debate circular.  But Mr. Jones' question remains valid.


--Ana L. Rosado Feger, Ph.D.

REPLY FROM C.TODD JONES:

Dear Dr. Feger,

Thank you for replying.

I will offer you the same challenge that I have made to others in the gifted community: if you do not like the outcome standards that are being offered by the board, please suggest other additional ones. I am very open to other options for those standards, but I have yet to see a single one offered.

I will turn the suggestion around. The standards endorsed by the advisory panel are the same ones, in essence, that have been in place for the past five years. If these standards worked so well, why do most of the letters I have received make the case that gifted education is not working in Ohio? Why should we keep a regime that is not just failing to deliver well enough, but instead is claimed to be completely failing?

You are quite right that there will be more flexibility to structure services by administrators. They will also for the first time be held publicly accountable for results. The status quo of input-based standards--endorsed by the advisory committee--do not attempt to hold districts accountable and as evidenced by the last several years, will not improve services.

I am pleased to hear that your district is providing good services. My goal as a state policy maker is to identify a means of moving a majority of the districts that are not serving these students toward student success. I do not believe that the current standards do that, and those are the ones backed by the advisory committee.

If you agree with me on outcomes, then in the strongest possible terms I encourage you to offer your suggestions for improvement. I have made this exact offer and request to numerous advocates. To date, I have received no responses.


Cordially,

C. Todd Jones
Member
State Board of Education






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osu.edu/pipermail/ohiogift/attachments/20130918/f20638e7/attachment.html>