<div dir="ltr"><div>Here is a lengthy response Todd Jones sent to me last week. This is probably a standard response he has sent to many parents. </div><div><br></div><div>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. </div>
<div><br></div><div>Does Todd Jones genuinely think dropping the rule will improve gifted education? Or is he hostile to gifted children the way the superintendent is?</div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>
From: <b class="gmail_sendername">Jones, Todd</b> <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Todd.Jones@education.ohio.gov">Todd.Jones@education.ohio.gov</a>></span><br>Date: Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 10:52 AM<br>Subject: RE: Changes to gifted education<br>
To: Charlie Toland <<a href="mailto:charlie.toland@gmail.com">charlie.toland@gmail.com</a>><br><br><br>
<div>
<div style="direction:ltr;font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">Dear Mr. Toland,<br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">Thank you for your letter. I appreciate your taking the time to contact me.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">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.
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">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.
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">Thank you again for writing.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">Cordially,</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">C. Todd Jones</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">Member</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">State Board of Education</p>
<br>
<div style="font-size:16px;font-family:Times New Roman">
<hr>
<div style="direction:ltr"><font color="#000000" face="Tahoma"><b>From:</b> Charlie Toland [<a href="mailto:charlie.toland@gmail.com" target="_blank">charlie.toland@gmail.com</a>]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, September 20, 2013 11:28 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Jones, Todd<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Changes to gifted education<br>
</font><br>
</div><div><div class="h5">
<div></div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">Dear Mr. Jones,
<div><br>
<div dir="ltr">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.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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. <br>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div>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. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thank you,</div>
<div>Charles Toland</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div></div></div>
</div>
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)
</div>
</div><br></div>