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

Wed Sep 18 11:07:18 EDT 2013

And that was indeed my initial reply to him, that we cannot have a discussion about effectiveness in regard to the current standards because there is no requirement to implement and thus the current global “analysis” is fatally flawed.

But I didn’t have a more detailed  analysis to back it up, and I really appreciate your second paragraph.

The discussion of a proper output measure is a parallel AND necessary discussion.  I do not mean to imply that it has not occurred, I am simply not well-informed about the development because I am a late entrant to this discussion.  However, if I am getting a response from a member of the state board, I will continue to drive OUR points home to him…I just need to know what our points are in this regard.

--Ana L. Rosado Feger

From: anngift at aol.com [mailto:anngift at aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2013 10:56 AM
To: Rosado Feger, Ana; Ohiogift at lists.service.ohio-state.edu
Subject: Re: [Ohiogift] What DO we want the outcome measure to look like?

The standards work when they are implemented. They do not work when districts aren't required to follow them. The discussion of outputs is fine, but it is a separate, parallel discussion and should not distract us from the fact that the new draft standards which eliminate quality standards will not lead to better outcomes for gifted students. We support better outputs. We have for years, and we have been thwarted for years by ODE leadership who has refused to work on developing anything meaningful. Better outputs are important, but good inputs and processes are important as well. There is a wide-body of research that demonstrates that the inputs and process that are in the current standards do lead to gifted success. There has always been a marked difference in the performance on the OAAs between those students who receive services and those who do not.  (Please view the 2012 State of the State in Gifted Education presentation prepared by the ODE gifted consultants<http://www.oagc.com/files/OAGCStateoftheState2012.performanceslides.pdf>)

And now there is compelling evidence based on the value-added output that the optional regulations or standards do indeed lead to quality services. In looking at the districts receiving an “A” in their value-added subgroup measure versus those receiving an “F,” there is a distinct gap between the identification and service levels in the two groups. In “A” districts, almost 72% more gifted students are identified than those in “F” districts and almost 65% more students are served in the “A” subgroups as those in the “F” groups. When one drills down to the grade bands where value-added is calculated, the difference becomes even more remarkable:  In the “A” district group, 64% more gifted students are identified than those in the “F” groups and over double (123%) the number of students are served in the “A” subgroups as those in the “F” groups! These figures strongly suggest there is much more than casual relationship between the identification and service of gifted students based on the current standards (regulations). These statistics should give state board of education members pause before they eliminate the standards of time, staff and training. Existing specific requirements that are followed in districts have led to great success, and should be required in all districts.  Eliminating all quality standards of service before we have any adequate outputs to implement will be detrimental to our gifted children.

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?

-----Original Message-----
From: Rosado Feger, Ana <rosadof at ohio.edu<mailto:rosadof at ohio.edu>>
To: Ohiogift <Ohiogift at lists.service.ohio-state.edu<mailto:Ohiogift at lists.service.ohio-state.edu>>
Sent: Wed, Sep 18, 2013 10:13 am
Subject: [Ohiogift] What DO we want the outcome measure to look like?

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

_______________________________________________

Ohiogift mailing list

Ohiogift at lists.service.ohio-state.edu<mailto:Ohiogift at lists.service.ohio-state.edu>

https://lists.service.ohio-state.edu/mailman/listinfo/ohiogift
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osu.edu/pipermail/ohiogift/attachments/20130918/4061cd4a/attachment.html>