After two days of debating the proposed changes to the report card, the State Board of Education Performance and Impact Committee is seeking comment on the report card rules. The turn-around time for feedback is short. For three rules (including achievement; college, career, workforce, and military readiness, and graduation), the deadline for comment is February 9th. The deadline for the gifted performance indicator, gap closing, progress, early literacy, and definitions is February 11th. OAGC is mostly focused on the rule for the gifted performance indicator which we support and the gap closing measure which we would support with changes made to include the component weights in the measure.
It is imperative that gifted advocates voice support for the gifted performance indicator rule and the gap closing component recommendations support by the Gifted Performance Indicator Workgroup and presented to the Performance and Impact Committee last week.
The link the all of the report card rules is: https://education.ohio.gov/About/Ohio-Administrative-Code-OAC-Rule-Comments. Email [email protected] to submit comments. If you have any questions regarding the rules after reading the materials listed or linked below, please feel free to email [email protected] for more information.
The following is the OAGC message to the State Board regarding the rules:
“OAGC supports the recommendations presented to the Performance and Impact Committee regarding the Gifted Performance Indicator and the Gap Closing Measure at the January 25th/26th meeting. We believe the recommended changes to the gifted performance indicator will:
• Ensure that the indicator meets the letter and the spirit of HB 82 (the report card reform legislation);
• Result in a measure that will be fairer to smaller, more rural districts and will ensure that the policy goal of identifying and serving under-served populations (i.e. economically disadvantaged and underserved minority sub-groups) is addressed as required in HB 82; and, finally,
• Balance high standards with the knowledge that the pandemic has set identification/services and performance of gifted students back.
In addition, OAGC supports the recommended weighting of each element of the gifted indicator in the gap closing measure and the weights that are proposed. We believe this change will more fairly award districts for the work they are doing. Additionally, it addresses the issue of districts who fail to adequately identify and serve gifted students, because they are discouraged that they cannot meet all three elements of the gifted indicator.
With regard to specific rule language, we support the posted gifted performance indicator rule 3301-28-04. We strongly recommend that the gap closing measure rule 3301-24-02 include more specific information about the weights for each component included in the measure. We also recommend that the overall star rating language included in 3301-24-10 for gap closing should be moved to 3301-28-02. This last recommendation applies to the achievement, progress, graduation, and early literacy rules as well. Below is a summary of the changes being proposed. These changes are crucial to ensure that the gifted performance indicator maintains high standards, promotes policy goals of underrepresented subgroups, and eliminates the bias against smaller districts. The proposed weight of the gifted indicator elements in the gap closing measure encourages districts to support gifted students while receiving credit for the work they are doing.
|
Element |
Current Scoring |
Proposed Changes |
|
Gifted Performance Index |
117 (out of 120+) and above is required for a “met” status. |
Mirroring the general population performance index changes in the revised achievement component, the gifted index will be tied to average of the top 2% maximum district/building scores. The score required for a met status will fluctuate based on that average. Instead of hard score of 117, the met score will be based on a percentage of the average maximum score. This component will be phased in over three years with increasing standards as was done when the indicator was originally introduced in the report card. All content areas tested will be used in this measurement. |
|
Gifted Progress |
A grade of A, B, or C is required for a met status. |
Met status will change from grades to stars. Three, four, and five stars will be required for a met status. |
|
Gifted Identification and Service |
This element measures the level of identification and service across different grade bands, types of gifted categories, and student subgroups (i.e. economically disadvantaged and minority students which is required by Ohio Revised Code). Each of these areas are assigned points. Districts/buildings are measured out of a hard score of 100 regardless of their subgroup student population. A score of 80 is required for a met status. |
Changes to this element reflect requirements from Ohio Revised Code and to address problems with the point system that unfairly limits the scores of smaller (mostly rural) districts that have small subgroup populations. The workgroup also recommended changes to better match this element to the standards set out in the gifted rule. Nothing new is measured in this element. The changes include: · Restructuring the grade levels to K-2, 3-6, 7-8, and 9-12 to have a more discrete look at early identification practices. · Increasing the points from 100 to 140 – again to allow a more discrete delineation of scores and to better emphasize some policy goals. · Using the representation index for subgroup populations so that districts are only measured based on the populations that reside in their districts. · Allowing the scores for districts and buildings to fluctuate based on their populations. For example, if District XYZ has no underrepresented minority students, the number of maximum points that the district is rated on drops from 140 to 110. Currently, the district would lose the points for that subgroup population but still be measured on the same scale of 100. As with the gifted performance index score, districts and buildings will no longer be rated by a hard and fast score but by a percentage of their maximum points. This element would also be phased in over three years. |
|
Current Vs. Revised Placement and Weight of the Gifted Performance Indicator |
|
|
Current |
Proposed Revision |
|
The Gifted Performance Indicator is included in the Indicators Met section of the Achievement Component. The Gifted value-added or progress measure is on the of the subgroups graded in the Progress Measure. |
The Gifted Performance Indicator will be moved to the new gap closing measure. All the subgroups in the progress measure are removed and provided weights in the new gap closing measure. (Required by Ohio Revised Code) |
|
The Gifted Performance Indicator Elements are All Combined to a single met/not met status. |
Each element of the indicator is provided a separate weight of 5 points (15 total) out of the 75 point total for the full gap closing measure. Met/Not met status is described in the previous chart |
Gifted Performance Indicator Presentation to the State Board of Education Performance and Impact Meeting – Beginning on Slide 4.
Gap Closing Presentation – Beginning on Slide 50. Slide 53 outlines the proposed weights.
Gap Closing Rule (included with other rules)
Gifted Performance Indicator Rule (included with other rules)
