Advocacy Update 5/25/10 -- While there are a number of advocacy initiatives underway, there is not a tremendous amount of new information to report. Gifted advocates will be pleased to know that ODE staff removed the legislative recommendation regarding the narrowing of gifted identification categories from the State Board of Education legislative platform due to the need for more "thoughtful discussion" on the issue. While it is a relief to see the item removed, we will need to watch carefully to see if another recommendation regarding this issue resurfaces.
The gifted advisory council is scheduled to meet on June 1, 2010. The purpose of the council is to discuss the gifted spending rule provisions required as part of House Bill 1 as well as the gifted performance indicator. All documents from these meetings will be posted at www.oagc.com/?q=rulerevision.
In addition, the Ohio School Funding Council Special Needs Subcommittee has been meeting regularly. The discussions have been lively, collaborative, and generally positive. The June 4th meeting will be devoted to gifted education funding and accountability issues. As part of the meeting documents, the subcommittee will receive a copy of the OAGC response to Jack Pierson's memo on ELL and gifted funding. To view the response, please click here. The subcommittee will be making final recommendations to the full Ohio School Funding Advisory Council on July 28, 2010.
Advocacy Update 4/14/10 – On April 13, 2010, OAGC President, Sally Roberts and OAGC Executive Director, Ann Sheldon, had the opportunity to present information about gifted budget concerns to the State Board of Education. The PDF of the presentation is available at www.oagc.com/?q=statebudget. Members of the State Board seemed generally positive and several asked questions about the funding system:
Sam Schloemer wanted to know if the decrease in gifted services was a recent trend or something that has been happening for awhile. He also wanted to know if the issue of tracking gifted funding in transitional aid had to do with EMIS.
Martha Harris asked how many gifted children were twice exceptional especially those identified as emotionally impaired (Ms. Harris is a formal special education teacher with expertise in that area). She asked whether it would be helpful to have pre-service programs include coursework in gifted and special education for general educators.
Susan Haverkos indicated that she would like OAGC to provide a quarterly or regular report on the implementation of House Bill 1. She also asked whether we supported the proposed legislative recommendation to eliminate some categories of gifted identification. (More about that later).
Rob Hovis asked whether the changes to gifted funding in HB1 when everything was phased in would be good and bad for gifted. He also was concerned about the information on excellent districts shared in the presentation.
Several board members approached Sally and I after the presentation and expressed support for gifted education. All in all, it was a positive day.
The not so good news is a draft of potential legislative positions that ODE staff presented to the State Board of Education Advocacy and Outreach Subcommittee on Monday. One of those recommendations was to narrow the gifted identification categories and mandate only superior cognitive identification and service. It is unclear what the rationale for this recommendation is and as the recommendation was not shared with gifted stakeholders before it was presented to the subcommittee, we are still unclear about the intent of this recommendation. OAGC is strongly opposed to eliminating any categories of gifted identification. However, before the OAGC board officially responses to the draft recommendation, we wish to speak to ODE staff. OAGC will provide an update as soon as possible. To view the recommendation, please go to www.oagc.com/?q=statebudget.
The School Funding Advisory Special Needs Subcommittee met on April 1st. To see the outline of my informal presentation along with other funding documents, please go to www.oagc.com/?q=schoolfundingcouncil. The next special needs subcommittee is April 27th.
Advocacy Alert: March 10, 2010 -- Please contact your U.S. representative before March 12 to urge them to support the "Dear Colleague" letter to save Javit's funding. For more information and instructions on how to make this easy phone call, please click here.
Advocacy Update: February 24, 2010 -- Governor Strickland Calls Gifted population "Most Neglected"-- In comments to reporters at the 3rd Annual Ohio Economic Summit on Feb. 23, Governor Strickland spoke about the current education issues the state policymakers are facing. As reported by Hannah News:
"Outside the conference, Strickland addressed a number of issues facing the State Board of Education and the General Assembly, including the plight of "gifted" students, who are currently excluded from EBM funding.*
"The gifted population is one of the most neglected in our schools," he said, indicating that failure to address their needs would be ignoring the state's best talent "at our own peril."
Strickland noted Delisle's own sensitivity to the issue, married as she is to a national authority on the subject.
"I was aware of her concern for gifted education when I urged her selection as state superintendent," he said."
*Note from Ann: Gifted education is not excluded from EBM funding. The problem is that the accountability measures for the funding are not currently in place.
Advocacy Update: February 17, 2010 -- Superintendent Delisle To Districts, "Remember HB1 Intent on Gifted Education"-- In her 2.16.10 Weekly EdConnections Email to Ohio District Superintendents, Deb Delisle stated:
"Throughout the past year, when House Bill (HB) 1 shifted funding for Ohio?s schools from a per-pupil foundation formula program to the Evidenced Based Model (EBM), a decision was made to have FY 2010-11 as a transition period as we begin to phase in the EBM over time.
During the past several weeks, we have received information from district personnel regarding changes being made at the local level to gifted programs. We have learned that in some instances, districts are reassigning gifted teachers and coordinators, reducing their hours, or eliminating their positions. ODE understands that the legislative intent for the gifted funding methodology in HB 1 for FY 2010-11 is to protect gifted services through this transition period at the same funding level that the state supported gifted education in FY 2009, and that these funds are to be used for certified gifted staff. The intent was to give districts time during this transition period to plan for future EBM funding levels. Once fully phased in, the EBM will provide higher levels of funding to most districts for services to identified gifted students. I urge you to consider this as you determine your district’s gifted staffing and service levels for the next school year.
In the coming months, ODE will be working to establish gifted spending and reporting requirements as provided in HB 1. In addition, HB 1 requires that a performance indicator be established reflecting the level of services provided to, and the performance of, gifted students. Please continue to work with your district gifted personnel to ensure a smooth transition for your gifted program as we all transition to the EBM. A successful transition during FY 2010-11 is critical to ensuring that your district will be prepared to meet the expectations set forth in HB 1 for gifted education in Ohio."
In other news, the 2.16.10 OSFAC (Ohio School Funding Advisory Council) meeting was canceled due to road conditions.
Advocacy Update: February 10, 2010 – Notes from the 2.4.10 School Funding Advisory Committee and the State Board of Education Meetings (LONG) -- As I indicated in a previous post, the next phase of gifted advocacy will be played out in several venues. This past week has been particular busy with both the Ohio School Funding Advisory Council (OSFAC) and the State Board of Education meeting to address funding issues. Gifted education was a topic of discussion in both meetings. The following is a summary of each meeting with links to additional documents. I apologize for the length.
Ohio School Funding Advisory Council – The Ohio School Funding Advisory Council (OSFAC) met for the third time on 2.4.10. Another meeting is scheduled for 2.16.10, which gives you some idea of the aggressive schedule this council will be keeping. After the conclusion of a presentation from ODE Budget guru, Kelly Weir, the council broke into subcommittees for the first time. The purpose of the first meeting was largely for the subcommittee members to introduce themselves and to determine whether each subcommittee wished to have outside members as part of process. Before the subcommittees broke into groups, State Superintendent Deborah Delisle who chairs OSFAC, indicated that subcommittees could ask to have specific stakeholder groups nominate members to the subcommittee but that subcommittees should not ask for specific individuals to be nominated. As many of the education groups had heavily lobbied OSFAC members to nominate specific individuals, the Superintendent’s directive took the politics out of the nomination process. The Special Needss subcommittee, which has seven members (Rick Lukich asked to join the subcommittee), could have nominated seven additional outside groups to nominate members. Instead, they opted to request nominations from four outside groups: The Coalition for the Education of Handicapped, the Ohio Association for Gifted Children, the Coalition for Quality Education (a charter school organization), and the ODE LEP (Limited English Proficient) Advisory Council. If the full Council agrees to accept the nominations of all the subcommittees, the OAGC should have someone on the subcommittee to provide information and insight into gifted funding and policy in Ohio. This is a good thing as other committee members have already weighed in on gifted funding. For a view of one member’s views, please click on Akron Treasurer, Jack Pierson’s Memo on LEP and Gifted Funding (included in the 02.04.10 documents). Warning: it may make your blood pressure rise. The next OSFAC meeting is 2/16/10. We will know more about the direction and make-up of the subcommittee at that point. And, yes, OAGC will respond to the Jack Pierson memo.
State Board Meeting – Notes on 2.08.10 Budget Informational Sessions on Special Education and Gifted Education – In order to prepare the full board for upcoming discussions regarding board recommendations for the next biennial budget, ODE staff has been presenting information about various areas in the budget. This month the discussion was around special education and gifted education. While the majority of the ODE presentation was about special education, the board was still very engaged regarding the gifted education presentation and asked many questions. Below, I will paraphrase some of that discussion. In addition, I am going to attach a snippet of the Hannah report account of the meeting. It is a somewhat different view than mine, and as many of you have seen this report, I felt it might be interesting to compare the two accounts. I will only include the gifted education portion of the report. I am also including a response from Superintendent Delisle regarding her quote in the Hannah report.
Ann Report: State of Gifted Education Sparks Lively Round of Questions at State Board Meeting
Associate Superintendent Jane Wiechel provided the information on both special education and gifted education funding to state board members. Interestingly, ODE gifted consultants were not in attendance at the meeting. While the identification numbers were included in the presentation, service numbers were not though Dr. Wiechel provided this information during the Q and A portion of the presentation. And while information about gifted performance on achievement tests were shared, the information regarding the performance gap between gifted students served and unserved was not shared. There was no mention of the gifted advisory council or the current difficulties in the districts as the state transitions from unit funding to the OEBM funding stream. Once the presentation was completed, board members asked many questions of Dr. Wiechel:
Board member Tammy O’Brien questioned the once ID’d, always ID’d policy. She believes that the identification process is not holistic and is merely based on tests. She thought gifted students could be gifted one year and not the next due to tests. While Dr. Wiechel explained that there standard testing policies and procedures, districts implemented them differently. Superintendent Delisle explained that identification is not the same as service. Districts often use different criteria for service than for identification. O’Brien than asked whether districts all served students. Superintendent Delisle said that services were all over the place in Ohio. She indicated that some districts are indicating students are served even if they are only provided one hour per week. (Note from Ann: under the 2009 operating standards, this is no longer counted as service).
Board member Steve Millett said that there was a fundamental asymmetry between special education and gifted education: There is no federal or state law for gifted education and there is for special education. Dr. Wiechel explained that there is state law that requires identification of gifted students but no such law for service. Millett went on to say that as a state we are doing nothing for gifted students and that we are turning them off because we don’t have a plan. He also indicated that every gifted student needed an IEP, but perhaps one not as burdensome as the special education IEP, and that ODE should put a template out to districts for a gifted IEP. (Note from Ann: I will let Dr. Millett know that gifted students are required to have a WEP, even though some are no more than a checklist.)
Board member Rob Hovis said he supported everything Steve Millett said and wanted to know if there was data on the districts that identified students but did not serve them. He also wanted to know if districts chose not to serve gifted students due to lack of funding and staff. Dr. Wiechel indicated that those were two of the reasons. She went on to say that one of the good things about the new gifted formula in the OEBM is that all districts would have access to gifted funds. At this point, Superintendent Delisle indicated that there was “an elephant in the room” or actually an “elephant in the state” regarding gifted education. She said that one of the reasons gifted children aren’t served in all districts is because there are many adults who do not believe that gifted students need any additional services. She went on to say that gifted children have special needs just as special education students do. Many board members nodded their head in agreement. Hovis then asked Dr. Wiechel for a one page fact sheet on the status of gifted education in Ohio.
Board Member Mike Collins wanted to know if a gifted student’s identification could be expanded in further testing. He was told yes. He also wondered if some districts weren’t receiving services because the ESCs in their area didn’t offer gifted services as part of the ESC.
Board Member John Bender indicated that gifted parents are strong advocates for their children and thought that some of the issues being brought up (lack of a mandate and funding) could be addressed in the board’s legislative recommendations.
Board Member Susan Haverkos gave an impassioned speech about the fact the ID but no service issue was the reason she was on the board. Her daughter was bullied and not provided appropriate opportunities in school. She indicated that twice exceptional children are even more hurt by the system. She believes gifted children often do not develop study habits and learning skills they need to be successful and that lack of gifted education in Ohio is a civil rights issue.
Board Member Jeff Hardin believes that we teach to the “center mass” rather than to ability level. He believes we need to do more with distance learning, with acceleration. We need to look at different models and ESC tools. He went on to say that the board needs to come up with a comprehensive view on this – and that maybe it needed to be done this year.
Not all of the comments were particularly supportive of gifted students. Board Member Sam Schloemer took “exception” to Steve Millett’s comments that IEPs were onerous. He said that the highest number of phone calls he receives were parents of special education students who could not get districts to properly implement the IEPs. He indicated that this population was the most vulnerable. Board Member Mary Rose Oakar after indicating that she was for serving all students, openly hoped that “we don’t cut special education funding to support gifted children.” She didn’t want it to be a competition between the two things. At this Superintendent Delisle cautioned board members to be careful about their language. She said that a gifted child was as vulnerable as a special education student if his or her needs were not met. She went on to say that Ohio was undergoing a review and analysis of gifted programs. (Note from Ann: apparently Rick Olenchak, former NAGC president is conducting this review). Delisle also went on to say that the OSFAC is looking into the gifted funding component.
Hannah Report: State of Gifted, Special Education Spurs Passionate Debate at State Board
The contrasting needs of gifted and special needs students and the divergent political commitments of State Board of Education members were united Monday by at least one theme: the current state of instruction for “exceptional” students of both types is leaving some unsatisfied customers in district neighborhoods and classrooms.
This week’s monthly board meeting scheduled a session on what might have been a typically informative but routine budget update on gifted and special education. Associate Superintendent Jane Wiechel of the Ohio Department of Education (ODE) Center for Students, Families and Communities had barely started her presentation, however, before questions and comments began to fly around the room, ultimately forcing board President Deborah Cain to reschedule a follow-up presentation on the Governor’s Early Childhood Advisory Board. <<SNIP>>
Comments were no more sanguine when they turned to gifted education. Wiechel explained that although Ohio’s public schools have more talented students than special needs – 16 percent, or more than 280,000 kids – the state has not set the same instructional or budgetary priorities for gifted children.
“Ohio has a mandate to identify students who are gifted,” she said of statutory requirements. “We do not have a mandate to serve students who are gifted.”
As a result, she said the state’s public schools meet the needs of less than 25 percent of all gifted children.
“We are doing nothing for the gifted child….” (Board Member Steve) Millet said. “We are turning a lot of gifted children off, because we don’t have a plan that moves them along fast enough. ODE needs to develop a plan.”
Board member Ron Hovis asked whether funding is the fundamental problem, for either teachers or facilities.
“That’s my understanding,” Wiechel said diplomatically. “We do have efforts being made in some schools, but not at the level that would be expected…. Those resources could be human as well as fiscal.”
Board member Tammy O’Brien puzzled over Wiechel’s claim that the gifted label is for life.
“From what I know,” said O’Brien, “the ‘gifted’ designation is based on a standardized test. You get a letter in third grade saying your child is gifted, then you are notified the next year that they’re not. And then you are told in the fifth grade that your child is once again gifted.”
That had been the experience in her own district, O’Brien explained. State Superintendent Deborah Delisle tried to clear up the confusing manner in which gifted education is addressed or not addressed from district to district.
“Because gifted services are not mandated in Ohio, a student may not be eligible for programs in that district….” she said, meaning a child so identified may not be designated gifted within a particular school system based on its own funding and testing criteria.
“It’s all over the place in the state of Ohio,” Delisle conceded, a basic funding question not addressed by the educational inputs of Strickland’s evidence-based model (EBM).
Board member Susan Haverkos put the issue on par with social justice. “‘Your child doesn’t have to be served, when every other child is,’” she said of the implications of the Legislature’s funding void. “The average kids are, the special ed kids are. Gifted education is a civil rights issue; budget is not an excuse not to serve these kids.”
The state superintendent did not disagree. “Gifted children are just as needy as special ed children.”
Oakar said the solution is to provide “comprehensive” funding for both kinds of exceptional students.
Outside the board meeting, Delisle said she could not commit to a dedicated funding stream for gifted students without seeing it in black and white. “I would have to look at what the mandate required.”
She noted, however, that the Ohio School Funding Advisory Council created by HB1 (Sykes) and EBM is considering long-term recommendations for gifted education – a cause also championed by a number of state board members.
Superintendent Delisle had this to say about the quote in the Hannah report in a subsequent email to me:
“Let me be very clear. I am dedicated to ensuring that all of Ohio’s students’ needs, including those of gifted students, are met in a system that remains highly flexible and responsive. When I mentioned (and this, by the way, was not an exact quote) that I could not commit to a dedicated funding stream for gifted students without seeing it in black and white and that I would have to look at what the mandate required, I was trying to be clear (and obviously it did not come across that way) that I never make commitments without seeing exactly to what I am committing. I am always cautious about commitment to the unseen because I have been witness too many times to good intentions that become diluted because of a number of factors. I have dedicated a significant portion of my professional career to the field of gifted education and will not turn my back on the needs of these students. Other comments I made during the session with the State Board hopefully demonstrated that I believe our education systems continue to shortchange many of our brightest students.”
OAGC has been invited to present to the full board in April regarding budget issues. Many of the concerns of the board members can be addressed at the time. In the meantime, gifted advocates may wish to contact their state board of education representatives to provide them with a local view of gifted education funding and policy issues.
The Ohio School Funding Advisory Council met on February 19th and voted to establish the following sub-committees with the following responsibilities:
Special Populations – to review special education, gifted education, and LEP funding.
Educational Linkages – to review career tech funding, early college funding, and
Regional Variations – to review the role of ESCs, to recommend changes to a regional delivery system to achieve efficiencies and to analysis the impact of open enrollment on districts.
Learning Environment – to review arts education funding and teacher compensation.
A fifth sub-committee was proposed and approved by the funding council to act as a coordinating committee. The role of this committee is somewhat unclear at present.
Each sub-committee will decide whether they wish to bring in outside individuals to serve on the sub-committees.
The following members of the School Advisory Council will be on the Special Populations Sub-committee. None of them have any experience or expertise in gifted education or funding.
Dayvenia Chesney, of Dayton, has been appointed as the early child representative. She currently serves as the CEO for the Miami Valley Child Development Centers. Chesney previously served as the manager of operations for the Council on Rural Service Head Start Programs. She also serves as a member of the Ohio Early Childhood Advisory Council and serves on the board of directors for the Ohio Head Start Association. Chesney has earned a bachelor's degree and a master's degree.
Robyn Essman, of Dayton, has been appointed as a community school representative. She has served as the executive of budget and financial management for the Columbus City Schools since 2008. Essman previously served as the budget director for the Dayton Public Schools from 2001-2008 and as the business manager for the Dayton Metro Library from 1987-2001. She currently serves as a member of the Ohio Association of School Business Officials. Essman received a bachelor's degree from Wright State University in 1975.
Representative Randy Gardner (R) has been appointed as the House Minority leader choice.
David Huelsman, of Reynoldsburg , has been appointed as the charter school parent representative.
Jan Kennedy, is Assistant Superintendent for Special Education of the Archdiocese of Cincinnati Catholic Schools, has been appointed as the chartered, non-public schools representative.
James McClure, of Painesville, has been appointed as a non-teacher, non-administrator representative. He serves as a material handler for the Mentor Public Schools. McClure previously served as a custodian for the Mentor Public Schools from 1985-1988. He was honored as the 2005 Education Support Professional of the Year by the Ohio Education Association. McClure is a graduate of Eastlake North High School.
Advocacy Update: January 15, 2010 -- Is this a Pre, Post, or Pre-Post Budget Meeting? – With the late adoption of the FY2010/FY2011 budget, the budget hole fix required this fall, and the upcoming big budget hole for FY2012/FY2013, it appears education advocates have entered a never-ending cycle of budget planning. So what could be seen as post budget implementation meetings now appears to be morphing into budget corrections and pre-budget planning meetings. At the end of the day, it is a distinction without a difference. For gifted advocates, especially gifted personnel who are feeling particularly vulnerable during this transitional period between funding systems, the next year of pre and post budget meetings is truly a critical time. Over the next few months, there are three or four different venues that are of particular importance for budget issues. Here is an overview of each and the decisions that each body is responsible to make that will impact gifted education:
Ohio School Funding Advisory Council – The Ohio School Funding Advisory Council (OSFAC) was created as part of House Bill 1 (HB1) and will meet at least twice a month through June to develop recommendations for the State Board of Education and the Ohio General Assembly on various aspects of the Ohio Evidenced Based Model of school funding. One of the areas that the council is required to review and report on by December 1, 2010 is the new gifted education funding formula. And, in fact, one of the sub-committees that Superintendent Deborah Delisle recommends the council establish is Special Needs. This subcommittee would review gifted education funding among other areas. However with no gifted expertise on the council, it will be interesting to see how the issue will be addressed. While HB1 allows for the council to bring in outside members to serve on sub-committees, the council will have to vote on whether or not they wish to bring in outside members with that expertise. This should happen at the next meeting on Tuesday, January 19th. If the council allows outside members, there is a good chance that someone from OAGC may be asked to be part of the Special Needs subcommittee. If not, then we will continue to advocate through testimony and direct contact with council members. OAGC has a new page on the website devoted to the work done by the Ohio School Funding Advisory Council. A new update will be posted after each meeting.
Gifted Education Advisory Council – The Ohio Department of Education (ODE) is convening a gifted advisory council to review department recommendations including:
· The development of administrative rules regarding the expenditure and reporting of gifted funds; and
· The development of a performance indicator reflecting the level of services provided to and the performance of gifted students by December 31, 2011.
While OAGC was invited to nominate two representatives to the council, it is unknown how many other individuals from the twenty other organizations will have any gifted background. No meetings have been announced, at this point. All information on the council will be available at a special area of the OAGC website. Interestingly, two of the organizations that represent the majority of districts in the state, the Ohio Coalition for the Equity and Adequacy of School Funding and the Ohio Alliance for Adequate School Funding were not invited to submit nominees to the advisory council.
School Funding Rule Development Stakeholder Group – Working parallel to the gifted advisory council, ODE will also be convening a stakeholder group on the HB1 spending and reporting requirements. The first draft of this rule is posted on the OAGC website. These rules will determine what elements of the school funding formula will be required by all districts and how the spending will be reported. This group is an important one to watch. OAGC has already indicated that they want to provide input as a stakeholder group, as the general spending and reporting rules are developed.
State Board of Education Budget Subcommittee – The State Board of Education is already beginning their work on the FY2012/FY2013 budget. As part of this process, the budget subcommittee is inviting education stakeholders to present each month. In January, representatives from the Buckeye Association of School Administrators (BASA) and the Ohio Educational Service Center Association (OESCA) presented to the subcommittee. In February, the Ohio School Boards Association (OSBA) and the Ohio Association of School Business Officials (OASBO) will present. And finally, in March, the Ohio Education Association (OEA) and the Ohio Federation of Teachers (OFT) has been asked to present. While still unofficial, it is likely that other stakeholder groups will also be asked to present their budget priorities. If true, OAGC representatives may be presenting budget priorities to the budget subcommittee in April.
The bottom line is that these are all important groups to monitor to ensure that the House Bill 1 gifted funding formula is implemented with integrity. Call it post budget work or pre budget work, if you prefer. It appears that the biennial budget work is no longer cyclical work for gifted advocates in Ohio.
Advocacy Update 12/18/09 -- HB318 Details -- The main provisions of HB318 are:
- a freeze on the income tax reduction, which is expected to generate enough funds to fill the $851 million hole in the education budget;
- a clarification on the waivers of the implementation of all-day kindergarten;
- and
For a more fun version of the events, go to High Ability blog.
Advocacy Update 12/17/09 10:45 PM -- Budget Hole Filled -- After contentious floor speeches in both the Ohio House and Senate, HB318 passed the General Assembly filling the $851 million hole in the education budget.
Advocacy Update 12/17/09 -- Budget Fix in the Works -- I will have more details be the end of the day.
Advocacy Update 12/3/09 – Budget Fixed? Not Yet – After two weeks of haggling, there is still no agreement on HB318, which would freeze the last year of the income tax reduction. The tax freeze is necessary to fill the $851 million budget hole caused be an Ohio Supreme Court decision which effectively removed the VLT (Video Lottery Terminal) revenue from the education budget. While there was some hope that a compromise had been reached yesterday, there was no deal at the end of the day. The sticking point seems to be around the issue of public construction rules.
In the meantime, the Ohio Department has been busy. State Superintendent released a 10 year strategic plan and the schedule for the school funding advisory council. Go to www.oagc.com/?=statebudget for more information.
Brief Update 11/23/09 - Follow-Up to Senate Hearing on HB318 -- As many of you probably are aware, the Senate did not take action on HB318 as expected, last week. Instead, the Senate majority caucus introduced a plan that included 2/3rds of the tax freeze sought by the Ohio House and number of smaller revenue generating ideas for the rest of the amount needed to fund the $851 million education budget shortfall. Interestingly, Senate Republicans indicated that in order for this alternative to pass, all of the Senate Democrats would need to vote for the plan, as the Republicans could only muster up five out of twenty-one members of their caucus to support the plan. For more information on the Republican plan, OSBA has a good summary on their website along with their call to action. The Senate will not be returning to Columbus until December. Until then, the education community will be nervously awaiting a resolution to this latest budget impasse.
Advocacy Update 11/18/09 – Tax Freeze, Race to the Top, Funding Council, Common Core and State Standards, State of the States in Gifted Education – It’s Enough to Make Your Head Spin – If you were anticipating a quiet Fall policy wise, forget about it. There is so much activity on the state and national level it is hard to keep the topics straight. Here is a brief run down on the pressing issues before us. OHIO POLICY ISSUESTax Freeze/Budget Correction Legislation – House Bill (HB) 318, which calls for a delay of the last year of the income tax reduction, is currently being debated in the Ohio Senate. The Senate is expected to introduce a substitute bill today that would provide alternatives to the tax freeze. The Ohio General Assembly is required to plug the (approximately) $850 million budget hole caused by an Ohio Supreme Court decision which forced the state to remove the Video Lottery Terminal (VLT) revenue from the budget. The education community is watching this bill closely, as the VLT revenue was being used to support education funding.
School Funding Council Members Named – HB 1 called for the establishment of a school funding advisory council. Governor Strickland, Speaker Armond Budish, and Senate President Bill Harris named the members of this council, which among other areas is to review gifted education funding. The list of members who have been appointed thus far can be found at www.oagc.com/?q=statebudget.ODE Requests for HB1 Gifted Amendments – Speaking of the funding council….. The Ohio Department of Education has requested several “technical” amendments to House Bill 1, three of which regard gifted funding. One deals with eliminating gifted education funding from the list of areas to be studied under the funding council. The second amendment concerns the gifted performance indicator language changes. And the third amendment requests changes to the gifted transitional aid language. OAGC has sent a response to these amendment requests to the Chairs of the House and Senate Education Committee as well as the Governor’s office. You can view our response at www.oagc.com/?q=statebudget. At this point, the initial feedback I am receiving from policymakers is that gifted language in HB1 will remain unchanged for now. Stay tuned for more information.
Ohio Academic Standards – The new Ohio math and reading standards have been put on hold due to the Race to the Top Application requirement that the Common Core Standards be adopted by any state wishing to apply (see item below). However, ODE has continued to move forward on science and social studies standards. A draft of these standards is posted on the ODE website at http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEDetail.aspx?Page=3&TopicRelationID=1696&Content=76764 . ODE is seeking input on the standards. Please try to review and offer comments at the above link.Gifted Praxis Requirement? – OAGC was surprised to learn that the Education Standards Board (ESB) had voted to require the Gifted Praxis exam for individuals wishing to receive gifted licensure. This recommendation was forwarded to the Capacity Committee of the State Board of Education last week. OAGC staff will be meeting with the executive director of the Education Standards Board (ESB) and other ODE staff to discuss the recommended requirement. Several individuals from OAGC’s Higher Education Division do not support the use of the gifted Praxis examination.
Progressive Sanctions – Many individuals in districts have asked how the special education progressive sanctions document related to gifted education funding. This is actually a very powerful accountability tool. To read the ODE policy, please go to www.oagc.com/?q=statebudget .NATIONAL POLICY ISSUES
Race to the Top (RTTT) -- The long awaited RTTT application was released late last week. ODE is expected to submit an application for the funds despite some concerns that Ohio’s laws regarding teacher evaluation based on student data and caps on internet community (charter) schools may be problematic. There are several pieces of legislation in both the House and Senate to correct these issues. For more information about RTTT, please click here. http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEDetail.aspx?page=520.Common Core Standards – The Common Core State Standards Initiative is a joint effort by the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) in partnership with Achieve, ACT and the College Board. Governors and state commissioners of education from across the country committed to joining a state-led process to develop a common core of state standards in English-language arts and mathematics for grades K-12. All states that wish to receive RTTT funds must adopt the common core standards. For more information about this initiative, please go to http://www.corestandards.org.
NAGC Releases the State of the States in Gifted Education report -- Late last week, the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) released the State of the States Gifted education report. This is the only national report that gathers data state-by-state. You will note that much of the data for Ohio is now inaccurate due to the major changes in gifted funding and policy in HB1. For more information about the report, please go to http://www.nagc.org .Budget Alert -- 10/2/09 -- OAGC Releases Statement on Strickland Proposal to Delay Tax Cut -- The OAGC Governing Board has voted to support Governor Strickland's proposal to delay the income tax cut. This action is necessary to fill the education budget hole due to the uncertainty of video lottery terminal revenue. To see the release, please click here. Gifted advocates may wish to contact their legislators to urge them to support the governor's plan. Without additional revenue, state funding for education will drastically cut.
Update 7/14/09 -- OAGC Posts Statement on HB 1 -- The OAGC has posted a statement on House Bill 1. Click here to read. Also, for those of you in Southwest, Ohio, Governor Strickland will be in the Loveland School District at 10:00 on 7/15/09 to discuss the education budget. All are welcome to attend.
