[Ohiogift] Whole-grade testing question

Fri Sep 30 13:35:21 EDT 2016

As a resident in a district with a variety of the same populations that
Colleen describes (low income, ELL, 2e), and the parent of two 2e children,
I wholeheartedly agree with Colleen.    Instead of "excluding" children
from assessment, the testing strategy should be designed to "include" as
many children as possible in the process.

On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Colleen Boyle, PhD via Ohiogift <
ohiogift at lists.osu.edu> wrote:

>
> Let me start with a clear disclaimer - I had a very strong internal
> reaction when I read this proposed policy, so this will likely shape up to
> be an op ed piece.  While I can see where the argument might be made as it
> was, I also know from experience and research that such policies do a
> tremendous disservice to students who are twice exceptional.
>
> So, let me share my experience with this.  For those who do not know me, I
> work in a very large, very diverse urban district.  Our population has an
> extremely high percentage of economically disadvantaged students (so much
> that we meet the provision for free breakfast/lunch programs for every
> student in the district), our special education percentage sits around
> 18-20%, and our ESL population is about 11-14%.  Last I heard, at least 30
> different languages are spoken in our district by our students, and we
> have a self-contained program site serving approximately 600 Level 1/2 ELL
> students in grades 6-12 as they transition into this country and into our
> district.
>
> When I arrived in my district 3 years ago, this policy wasn't in place
> officially, but it was in practice.  As a result, we had virtually no ELL
> students identified as gifted in any area, despite reports of phenomenally
> talented students in math, science, and cognitive with some students
> acquiring English skills at a unexpectedly quick rate (a sign of possible
> cognitive giftedness in ELL students).  Students with a specific learning
> disability were being exempted from all testing, so twice exceptional
> students didn't stand much of a chance at being identified, let alone
> receive services, for BOTH exceptionalities.  Even students with an
> emotional disability were being exempted from testing, and my academic
> research is heavy with research that shows how some disengaged gifted
> learners exhibit behaviors that may be misdiagnosed as a disability.  More
> and more research is surfacing to provide evidence that relying on teacher
> referrals alone for testing leads to underrepresentation of special
> populations in gifted identification and programming, particularly minority
> groups, English Language Learners, and students with disabilities.
>
> We cannot rely on the assessments conducted within the other programs to
> inform us of potentially gifted students.  ELL assessments for leveling
> students' English proficiency (OTELA, etc.) are NOT designed to identify
> gifted learners.  Some of the assessments used in special education
> referrals are not on Ohio's approved list, are not administered in a
> complete battery to generate a score that can be used for gifted ID, or, if
> falling in the gifted range, are not passed on to gifted coordinators to
> identify students because school psychologists and special education
> coordinators do not have training in the field of gifted education or Ohio
> law about gifted identification to know to pass it on.  Even in cases where
> a gifted coordinator actively pursues outcomes of special
> education evaluations, many still can slip through the cracks.  Including
> students in whole grade screening reduces the chance of students being
> missed.  Case in point - it was through whole grade screening that we were
> able to identify a student who is, as I call him, "thrice-exceptional."  He
> is an ELL student who has been in this country just a few months and has a
> disability that manifests itself in a way that would lead many to not
> consider his abilities nor would have led to the type of assessments during
> his special education evaluation that might lead to gifted identification.
> And yet he is also highly gifted in multiple areas.  Had this policy been
> in practice, he would not be receiving the desperately needed gifted
> services he is receiving today.  He is just one of many cases in my
> district I could cite.
>
> Now, there are cases where a student should not be included in whole grade
> screening because it creates a significant detriment to the child.  But,
> those exemptions to whole grade screening should be made on a case-by-case
> basis and be far fewer than would occur with the broad strokes used in the
> proposed policy.  We cannot assume ELL students cannot also be gifted.  We
> cannot assume a student with a disability cannot be gifted.  While it may
> seem that "Further testing these poor children seems so futile and a
> disservice to them," not testing them and overlooking gifted
> identification, thus automatically denying them potentially
> necessary gifted programming, is an even greater disservice.
>
> Instead, we need to approach this in a two-pronged manner.  First, we need
> to look at the whole grade testing instruments we choose to implement with
> our students.  ODE has a list of approved instruments that is pretty broad
> in some cases in terms of delivery, format, and appropriate population.  We
> need to move away from automatically going with the test option that is the
> cheapest on the list or is the one we've known the longest and instead
> research which tests are the best fit for each district's specific
> population.  If you couple that with adopting a whole-grade screening tool
> that can also be used for other purposes, such as Third Grade Reading
> Guarantee, student growth measures for teacher evaluations, and general
> instructional planning, tests that may be a little more expensive per pupil
> become less expensive because of their multiple purposes.  We have an
> ethical responsibility to select tests that are appropriate for our ENTIRE
> population (it's Ohio law that we sign that paper acknowledging ethical
> test practices every year - this is one of those clauses), and we have an
> even greater ethical responsibility not to discriminate against any student
> group in identifying or providing services related to gifted identification.
>
> Second, we need to look at how we can provide opportunities for students
> who may be twice exceptional to develop their talent in a way that they can
> them demonstrate their giftedness on the testing measures used for
> identification in our state.  What can we do at an early age to help
> students become exposed to language acquisition, analytical and logical
> reasoning, creative expression and invention, pictoral reasoning, and
> evaluative thought?  What accommodations can be provided to help students
> either move beyond or use other exceptionalities to their advantage as they
> demonstrate their giftedness?  Deliberate instruction of the thinking
> skills described here coupled with scaffolds and accommodations to support
> students who may not fit the high achieving or culturally dominant mold so
> often associated with giftedness can enable twice- (or even thrice-)
> exceptional students to flourish in ways we cannot imagine.
>
> Please do not limit our children, regardless of the characteristics that
> make them their unique selves.  They deserve better from us as educators.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Colleen Boyle, PhD
> Directorof a Gifted & Talented department
> President, OAGC
> ***Disclaimer: While I feel confident many of my fellow OAGC leaders and
> school district colleagues would agree with me, the statements made above
> are not an official or board-approved position of OAGC or my school
> district.  The opinions expressed here are my own.*
>
> On Sep 30, 2016, at 09:45 AM, Art Snyder via Ohiogift <
> ohiogift at lists.osu.edu> wrote:
>
> Colleagues,
>
> *How do your districts handle whole-grade testing when it comes to
> students who are not proficient in English, or who are special-needs
> students who simply cannot do the work?*
>
> We are contemplating a district policy that involves a statement such that
> these students have already had multiple assessment opportunities (since
> they had to have these for special needs designations) and can be exempted
> from the whole-grade nationally-standardized testing for giftedness.
>
> Further testing these poor children seems so futile and a disservice to
> them, as they could better use those hours in their specific programming!
>
> *Your reactions, please!*
>
> Jean Kremer
> Jean.Kremer at mcesc.org
>
> Gifted/Talented Supervisor
> Montgomery County Educational Service Center
> 200 South Keowee Street
> Dayton, Ohio 45402
> o937.225.4598 x 3003 c937-369-7510
> Jean.Kremer at mcesc.org
> https://twitter.com/mcesc
>
> *FACEBOOK*: Parents of Gifted Children West Central Ohio
> https://www.facebook.com/ParentsofgiftedchildrenWestCentralOhio
>
> *WCOAGC.org <http://WCOAGC.org>*  West Central Ohio Association for
> Gifted Children
> _______________________________________________
> Ohiogift mailing list
> Ohiogift at lists.osu.edu
> https://lists.osu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ohiogift
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ohiogift mailing list
> Ohiogift at lists.osu.edu
> https://lists.osu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ohiogift
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osu.edu/pipermail/ohiogift/attachments/20160930/ab8280f4/attachment.html>