[Ohiogift] OAGC Advocacy Alert: Guidelines to ODE Gifted Rule Survey

[Ann Sheldon]

ODE has opened a survey to ask for input on the proposed giftedstandards. Unfortunately, the questions asked in the survey appear to bedesigned to construct a pre-determined narrative which would support theproposed rule changes.  Gifted advocateshave asked OAGC for advice on how to respond to the questions in a way thatwould advocate for the changes necessary to support appropriate services andstaffing for gifted children.  While OAGCstrongly urges advocates to use their own experiences and expertise to answerthe questions, we are providing some guidance on how to answer the specificquestions in a way that will help ensure that advocates are not “trapped” bythe bias of the questions. As there is space after each question to providespecific input, please do so. Please also express your displeasure with thenature of the survey itself. Below, please find a list of the ODE surveyquestions along with a brief statement of OAGC’s concerns andrecommendations.  For a draft of a verydetailed response of each concern and recommendation by priority, please go tohttp://www.oagc.com/files/DraftOAGCResponseto9.11.15ProposedRuleChanges.10.21.15.pdf. The link to the ODE survey ishttps://www.surveymonkey.com/r/8QKLLFR .  Input will be taken until 5:00 pm on Friday,November 6, 2015. It is important that as many gifted advocates as possibleprovide input. It is equally important to write email state board of educationmembers. If you have questions, please contact Ann Sheldon at anngift at aol.com. 
 
Identification and General DefinitionsSurvey Questions:  
 
“Theproposed rules provide the guidance needed to support identification of giftedstudents.” OAGC disagrees. 
 
“Theproposed rules clearly define opportunities for identification of students as gifted.”OAGC disagrees. 
 
OAGC concerns: Thespecific general language that currently exists in the current operatingstandards has been removed. This language is necessary to ensure that districtsfollow best practice and meet the letter and spirit of ORC. Whole grade testinghas been expanded which OAGC supports, however the language can be improved toimprove testing in early grades in a more effective and efficient way tosupport the identification of under-represented student populations.
 
OAGC recommends the following: 
 
1.   Revise the whole grade testing from K-3 to K-2 and limit the testingin this initial grade band to superior cognitive ability and specific academicareas of math and reading. In addition, incorporate the deleted elements fromthe identification section that are required in ORC and which exist in thecurrent operating standards. 
2.   Reinstate general identification and service definitions as outlinedin current operating standards 3301-51-15 section A to provide clarity todistricts. 
 
Service Survey Questions:  
 
“Theproposal rules provide flexibility in how districts may serve giftedstudents.”  OAGC neither disagrees nor agrees. The proposed rule obliterates allstandards of quality service so it is impossible to answer this question. 
 
“Theproposed rules clearly describe standards for the quality and extent ofgifted services.” OAGC stronglydisagrees. 
 
OAGC concerns: Theproposed rule eliminates all quality parameters for service includingcaseloads, minimum levels of service, and even the definitions of serviceitself.  There are currently 22 EMIScodes with a wide-variety of service options for gifted students. These draftstandards would limit the options to three and essentially destroy any abilityto determine which services are effective and which are not.  Services could be as little as 15 minutes aweek taught by a general education teacher with no gifted training. Inaddition, the proposed rule eliminates gifted staff qualifications in thecurrent rule which are based on national and state licensure standards in favorof “district-determined criteria.”  ODEdoes not allow this for any other student population. This will effectivelyeliminate trained gifted staff in many districts in favor of general educationteachers who will be provided with so-called high quality professionaldevelopment. Recent survey data indicates that for most general educationteachers this amounts to fewer than five clock hours per year.  The proposed rule would allow districts todefine services, define who is qualified to provide services and thereby allowdistricts to substantially define their own output that measures theirperformance.  It turns the gifted performanceindicator into a useless measure, but more importantly it undermines anystandards for appropriate services to a vulnerable population.  The end result disempowers parents and thegeneral public to determine which districts are providing effective giftedservices. 
 
OAGC recommends the following: 
 
1.      Reinstate minimum service minutes for students from current operatingstandards along with caseload limits. 
2.      Reinstate and more carefully define service and instructional settingsas provided in the current standards. 
3.      Remove the provision that allows poorly or untrained general educationteachers to provide service unless it is an accelerated classroom. 
4.      Reinstate gifted coordinator and intervention specialistqualifications from current standards for both districts and ESCs and ensurethat all gifted instructors are provided high quality professional development.
5.      Increase the scope and depth of the written education plan and areasonable attempt to require parent signature. Also, require that a gifted coordinator or gifted interventionspecialist collaborate on the writing of WEPs. 
6.      Reinstate instruction time requirement for gifted interventionspecialists from current standards.
 
Funding Survey Questions:  
 
“The proposed rules outline the district obligation to report on fundsthat support gifted education annually.”OAGC neither agrees nor disagrees.  Thesurvey fails to ask the real question of whether the district is expendingfunding appropriately on gifted students as required by ORC. 
 
“Gifted staff qualifications for educational service centers thatreceive gifted unit funding are clear.” OAGCagain neither agrees nor disagrees. The survey fails to acknowledge that giftedstaffing qualifications are eliminated for districts. 
 
OAGCconcerns:  Funding accountability isreferenced several times in O.R.C. including sections 3301.07, 3317.022, 3317.051,and 3317.40.  Taxpayers and parents havea right to know that the funds allocated for this population are being spent toserve them. Gifted children become the educational paupers when fundingintended to further their education is reallocated to other programs.  It sends a distinct message that servingthese students is not a priority for Ohio. If funding is not addressed, JCARR may reject this rule given theletter of legislative intent on this issue from Ohio House Speaker Pro Tempore,Rep. Amstutz, who verified that funding for gifted students should be spent ongifted students.  
 
OAGC recommends the following: 
 
·        Incorporate funding parameters to ensure gifted earmarked funding asstated in Ohio Revised Code (ORC).
 
Accountability Survey Questions:  
 
“Requirements for submission of annual plans and reports set clearexpectations for identification and services for services in the proposedrules.” OAGC strongly disagrees. 
 
“Components of the gifted indicator and the use of the indicator inthe annual district report card are essential to evaluation of gifted educationservices as outlined in the proposed rule.” OAGC strongly disagrees. As theproposed rule renders much of the gifted indicator useless, there will be notrue evaluation of gifted services in the proposed rule. 
 
OAGCconcerns: The proposed rule eliminates ODE gifted audits and ORC language thatallows ODE to remove funding for non-complaint districts. In addition, thereare no provisions to allow ODE reconstitute gifted services in districts thatare chronically failing gifted students as required in ORC. Finally, theproposed rule sharply limits the output gifted measures with which to holddistricts accountable. ODE is out of compliance with the agencies statutoryduty to perform gifted audits. This should be an issue for the auditor of thestate to review. The proposed rule eliminates most of the tools that ODE hasused in the past or could use for districts that are out of compliance withgifted laws and rules.  The proposed ruledisempowers both the State Board and ODE to a point where neither body will beable to meet their responsibilities to provide leadership on gifted educationissues and stewardship of state fiscal resources. 
 
OAGC recommends the following: 
 
1.   Reinstate provisions that require ODE audits and allow ODE to removefunds of non-compliance from current standards, as stipulated in ORC.  
2.   Incorporate data collection on specific inputs to determine effect ofservices.  In addition, the results ofthe gifted performance indicator should be incorporated into an annual reportoutlining the condition of gifted education in the state without limiting thegifted performance indicator to the current elements. 
3.   Reinstate service and staffing requirements that are in current theoperating standards as stated in the service section. With the reinstatement ofservice and staffing parameters, incorporate waivers on the basis ofperformance on multiple measures including but not limited to the giftedperformance indicator.  In addition,include language from ORC that allows ODE to remediate and reconstitute giftedservices in districts that are chronically failing gifted students. 
4.   Reinstate the district service plan as required by ORC. 



For a link to this input guideline, please go to: http://www.oagc.com/files/ODEInputGuidelines.10.21.15.pdf


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osu.edu/pipermail/ohiogift/attachments/20151021/208f5521/attachment.html>