[Ohiogift] Fwd: Changes to gifted education

[Charlie Toland]

Here is a lengthy response Todd Jones sent to me last week. This is
probably a standard response he has sent to many parents.

In it, he shows a remarkable confusion about what measuring "outcomes"
would involve, and confusion about the difference between research showing
the value of gifted education and objectively measuring annual progress of
students in different gifted programs.

Does Todd Jones genuinely think dropping the rule will improve gifted
education? Or is he hostile to gifted children the way the superintendent
is?


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jones, Todd <Todd.Jones at education.ohio.gov>
Date: Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 10:52 AM
Subject: RE: Changes to gifted education
To: Charlie Toland <charlie.toland at gmail.com>


 Dear Mr. Toland,



Thank you for your letter. I appreciate your taking the time to contact me.



I strongly support gifted education and believe that appropriate services
are indispensable to gifted children. That is why I am pleased with new
draft regulations that are being considered by the state board of education.



While there are numerous quality gifted education programs in Ohio schools,
the current system of regulations, whose basic tenants were reaffirmed by
the gifted education advisory committee this year, are not leading to
successful outcomes. Under current regulations, nearly one-third of
districts are providing no services to children. Nearly one in ten
districts have not even identified their gifted children. The problem is
not that the current approach to gifted education needs to be more
enthusiastically implemented or that regulations need to be punitively
enforced; the problem is that a new approach is needed.



Some are convinced that being more prescriptive in how money is
spent—through teacher ratios, directives on who must administer and
coordinate services, instruction time ratios, and foreclosed alternative
approaches—will improve gifted education. I view those approaches as more
of the current, inadequate same.



One of the most important state-policy changes that can be made in Ohio is
to simultaneously hold principals and superintendents accountable for the
performance of their students using multiple measurements while
simultaneously giving them greater flexibility in how they spend money, how
they organize teachers and staff, and how they approach education. This
will mean that some requirements, like the new Third Grade reading
guarantee and end-of-course exams for high school students, have clear,
specific, and sometimes increased outcome requirements set by the state. In
other cases, like the proposed gifted education regulations, it means
eliminating the input-based micromanagement of staffing and service
delivery that exists currently.



In the case of gifted education, this will mean maintaining and
strengthening Written Education Plan; continuing to require differentiated
instruction; and establishing specific screening and assessment
requirements. It will not mean micromanagement of practices by the Ohio
Department of Education in a host of areas that are currently addressed.



The inputs based approach of current law is not working, and keeping it
will not improve student success. Will requiring a building principal to
spend more money on administrative staff instead of services really help
students? That is what the current regulations can require. Does pretending
that existing specific requirements are leading to quality services today?
Based on the dozens of letters have received over the last several days, I
believe the answer is no.



While I understand that you are concerned about the proposed gifted
education standards, I believe that keeping the same system that we have
used for a number of years will not lead to improvement of gifted
education. Instead, it will maintain a status quo that all agree is
unacceptable.



I believe that we can help gifted students more by holding districts
accountable for student success. This can be achieved by incorporating
gifted-specific metrics into district and school accountability systems and
report cards. These measures tell school leaders where they need to focus
their work, and allow the public to hold those leaders accountable through
our democratic processes.



Unfortunately for this rule making review, the metrics-development process
is separate from reviewing operating standards. But the fact that standards
are created through a different rule making mechanism does not diminish
their important or necessitate changes to the proposed gifted education
operating standards regulations.



Last week, I met with representatives of the gifted education community. At
those meetings, I have reaffirmed that the state is making this
inputs-to-outcomes shift across the entirety of education. To the extent
that they are concerned that the current outcome measures to not adequately
address gifted-education issues, I have encouraged them to recommend new or
different measures.



To date, I have received no recommendations for new measures from gifted
advocates. However, I have been told that creating such metrics will be
difficult, and that time will be necessary to identify and craft them. I
disagree. Advocates have been very quick to assert that a wealth of
research supports the value of gifted services. (I agree.) Turning that
research and those identified outcomes into performance measures is not as
difficult as asserted, or impossible, as your letter suggested. It also
does not address other appropriate measures, such as how many children are
identified and served.



I encourage you, as someone interested in gifted education, to work with
others in the gifted-education advocacy community to identify and craft new
measures for incorporation into state accountability systems. Your work
will improve education for gifted students, and more effectively ensure
that resources and effort are placed on gifted education in every district
than the current input-focused operating regulations could ever do.



Thank you again for writing.



Cordially,



C. Todd Jones

Member

State Board of Education

 ------------------------------
*From:* Charlie Toland [charlie.toland at gmail.com]
*Sent:* Friday, September 20, 2013 11:28 AM
*To:* Jones, Todd
*Subject:* Changes to gifted education

  Dear Mr. Jones,

As a parent, I strongly oppose the proposed changes to gifted education.
 The gifted programs in our school system are excellent, with superb
curriculum.  The one day a week has been a lifeline for our kids. The main
shortcoming of the gifted program is that it is only one day week.  That
is, the students have on day where they learn a tremendous amount, and four
days where they are academically bored. Most of what gifted kids learn in
elementary school is learned during the one day a week gifted class.
 Please don't take this away. Now that our daughter is in sixth grade,
where there is no gifted program, her classes spend over ninety percent of
the time on material she has known for years.

 While switching to outcome based standards sounds good in theory, it is
very problematic at best, and virtually impossible from a practical
standpoint.  Student based assessments that could be used to evaluate
gifted programs simply do not yet exist.  Trying to adapt existing tests is
not feasible for many different reasons. A concerted effort to develop new
tests from scratch would probably fail, given the range of age and
abilities, the variety and quantity of content, and idiosyncratic nature of
the gifted kids.  Within the community of gifted kids, there is an enormous
range of ability and achievement.  Tests that covered gifted kids in any
sort of a meaningful or useful way would need to have a scope that is many
times greater than the combined total of all of the testing currently used
in public education. There are very low odds of coming up a test that
reflects the quality of the gifted programs, as reflected by the recent
value added report cards released by the state.

 Student/parent surveys would be feasible and beneficial way of measuring
the outcome of gifted programs. I can think of many questions that could be
asked.  Unfortunately, such surveys would be new to public education.  The
introduction of surveys could be very disruptive and challenging for the
public education hierarchy, and would likely take years to implement to the
point where they would b useful.

 I am afraid that the proposed changes will lead to the end of gifted
programs for schools and students.  I can't tell you how important these
programs are for high ability kids and how dependent these kids are on the
programs and the specialists.  During kindergarten, our son was sent to the
principle's office three times in the four days before he started his once
a week, half hour, one on one sessions with the gifted teacher. There
wasn't another trip to the principle's office after that first meeting. His
sister's experience in kindergarten was equally traumatic and the change
when she started in the gifted class was also magical.  The gifted programs
give high ability kids reasons to hope, while their experience in the
regular classroom can give them none.

 Thank you,
Charles Toland

    PLEASE NOTE: This message and any response to it may constitute a
public record, and therefore may be available upon request in accordance
with Ohio public records law. (ORC 149.43)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osu.edu/pipermail/ohiogift/attachments/20131007/54900f57/attachment.html>