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

Thu Sep 19 08:26:41 EDT 2013

How would the outcomes be measured? What instruments would be used? Would
Value-Added for gifted be part of that criteria? And, mandating services
takes $$$, which we don't have. State funding of services would have to
implemented, as it is in Florida. If a child is identified, he is served -
no ifs, ands, or buts. How nice that would be. . . 

Chip

Edward A. Hawks, III, M.Ed.

  _____  

Gifted Intervention Specialist / Exceptional Student Education

Kent City School District

  _____  

"What he seemed, he was-a wholly human gentleman, the 

essential elements of whose positive character were two and 

only two, simplicity and spirituality."  

(Douglas Southall Freeman on Robert E. Lee)

From: ohiogift-bounces+eah3rd=windstream.net at lists.service.ohio-state.edu
[mailto:ohiogift-bounces+eah3rd=windstream.net at lists.service.ohio-state.edu]
On Behalf Of Buga, Michelle
Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 7:55 AM
To: anngift at aol.com; rosadof at ohio.edu; Ohiogift at lists.service.ohio-state.edu
Subject: Re: [Ohiogift] What DO we want the outcome measure to look like?

Help me think about this...  What if the operating standards required
identification and service with the outcome of measurable growth in areas of
identification?

I don't want my attachment to the current standards to limit my thinking.
The current operating standards have great service models that work, but
that doesn't mean they are the only models that work, nor does it mean they
work for everyone.  What I really want for my students is for their
educational experiences to be suited to their needs so they can learn and
grow.  What if there is another way?  Can we use the issue of local control
to our benefit?  

Michelle Buga
Gifted Intervention Specialist

  _____  

From: ohiogift-bounces at lists.service.ohio-state.edu
[ohiogift-bounces at lists.service.ohio-state.edu] on behalf of anngift at aol.com
[anngift at aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2013 11:10 AM
To: rosadof at ohio.edu; Ohiogift at lists.service.ohio-state.edu
Subject: Re: [Ohiogift] What DO we want the outcome measure to look like?

Yes, and now you have them. ;^) 

.  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.   

-----Original Message-----
From: Rosado Feger, Ana <rosadof at ohio.edu>
To: Ohiogift <Ohiogift at lists.service.ohio-state.edu>
Sent: Wed, Sep 18, 2013 11:08 am
Subject: Re: [Ohiogift] What DO we want the outcome measure to look like?

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)

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>
To: Ohiogift <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
https://lists.service.ohio-state.edu/mailman/listinfo/ohiogift
_______________________________________________
Ohiogift mailing list
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/20130919/921bf92c/attachment.html>