Advocacy Update – 5.17.13 – And Now We Wait – The Ohio Senate Education Finance Subcommittee finished hearings this week on Amended Substitute House Bill 59. Several witnesses testified on gifted education and PSEO provisions including Brenda Gift and Angela Grimm on Tuesday, May 14, 2013 and Vickie Briercheck, Kimberly Curran, Anne Flick, Alena Flick, Kaitlyn Krepp, Patricia Krepp, and Sally Roberts on May 15, 2013. You may access their testimony at http://www.ohiosenate.gov/committee/education-finance-subcommittee# .
To get to the testimony, scroll down the page and click on Committee Documents. Then click on May 14 or May 15 to retrieve the testimony. Thank you to all the witnesses who gave their time and energy to support our efforts to maintain the House provisions in the budget bill. Your efforts do make a difference.
The Senate will now take a week or so to go through various amendments offered by senators and determine the direction they want to take on all issues including education. There does not appear to be an overall master plan in terms of what the funding formula will look like at this point. So we will need to wait and see. It is clear that given the tremendous pressure from the governor’s office, that the Straight A fund will likely be restored as well as some provisions in the college credit plus program.
The Senate will likely introduce a substitute bill the week of May 27th with the intent of voting the bill out of the Senate on June 5th. As there will be little activity next week, there will be no advocacy update next Friday.
Advocacy Update – 5.10.13 – Senate Education Finance Subcommittee Heads into Last Week – The Ohio Senate Education Finance Subcommittee continued hearings on Amended Substitute House Bill 59 over the past week with invited testimony. Next week the committee will have open public testimony at 10:00 AM on May 14 and 15. A witness slip is available at www.oagc.com/?q=statebudget and all testimony must be emailed 24 hours in advance to Stephen Nielson at snielson@ohiosenate.gov . The hearing is in the South hearing room of the Ohio Senate building. The committee needs to hear from a few parents and educators about what has happened to gifted under the free-for-all gifted funding system we’ve experienced over the past four years. It is really important for them to know that the executive budget solution for gifted students is unacceptable as there is no accountability for the funds at all. If you would like or be willing to testify, please contact me at anngift@aol.com .
As I have shared, despite overwhelming support from the education community for the House education funding formula changes, the Ohio Senate may go with the executive budget plan rather than the House funding plan. Regardless of the overall funding formula selected by the Ohio Senate, gifted advocates must convince the Senate to maintain the House changes to the gifted funding and accountability component. Gifted advocates need to continue to contact their own senator and the following individuals. The message is simple:
. Please maintain the changes to the gifted funding formula included in the House bill including the funding provided for gifted units at ESCs. These changes will provide for a stable and predictable method of funding after a period of tremendous instability for gifted funding and gifted services. The executive budget’s original proposal did not provide for the accountability and transparency of funding needed for this population.
. The gifted cost study included in the amended substitute bill could allow us to better develop a funding formula where funds could follow the gifted child.
. Please continue to work to improve the accountability for the gifted subgroup. The amended substitute improves on the accountability measures, but there is more work to be done to ensure that appropriate accountability measures are in place for this student population.
Please add your own personal story about why gifted education is important to you and your family. OAGC’s updated legislative platform is now available at www.oagc.com/?q=statebudget .
To find your own senator, please click the following link and scroll to “Find Your Senator.” http://www.ohiosenate.gov/senate/index
Other Senate Contacts Needed:
| Senator | Email Address | Senate Office Phone Number |
| Scott Oelslager – Senate Finance Chair | 614-466-0626 | |
| Randy Gardner (R) – Chair, Senate Finance Education Subcommittee | 614-466-8060 | |
| Peggy Lehner (R) – Vice Chair | 614-466-4538 | |
| Bill Beagle (R) | 614-466-6427 | |
| Cliff Hite (R) | 614-466-8150 | |
| Jim Hughes (R) | 614-466-5981 | |
| Gayle L. Manning (R) | 614-644-7613 | |
| Joe Uecker (R) | 614-466-8082 | |
| Chris Widener (R) | 614-466-3780 | |
Advocacy Update – 5.3.13 – Ohio Senate Update and Call for Witnesses – The Ohio Senate Education Finance Subcommittee continued hearings on Amended Substitute House Bill 59 over the past week with invited testimony from many individuals. The committee heard testimony from OAGC on Wednesday, May 1. To view the testimony, please go to www.oagc.com/?q=statebudget . The chair of the subcommittee indicated that there will be more invited testimony next week, and the week of May 13, the committee will probably be open to the public. Testimony is usually Tuesday at 11:00 AM, and Wednesday and Thursday at 9:30 or 10:00 AM in the South hearing room of the Ohio Senate building The committee needs to hear from a few parents and educators about what has happened to gifted under the free-for-all gifted funding system we’ve enjoyed over the past four years. If you would like or be willing to testify, please contact me at anngift@aol.com . There will be another opportunity to testify before the full Senate Finance committee as well.
As I indicated last week, despite overwhelming support from the education community for the House education funding formula changes, it is by no means a sure thing that the Ohio Senate will go along with the House plan. Regardless of the overall funding formula selected by the Ohio Senate, gifted advocates must convince the Senate to maintain the House changes to the gifted funding and accountability component. Gifted advocates need to continue to contact their own senator and the following individuals. The message is simple:
. Please maintain the changes to the gifted funding formula included in the House bill including the funding provided for gifted units at ESCs. These changes will provide for a stable and predictable method of funding after a period of tremendous instability for gifted funding and gifted services. The executive budget’s original proposal did not provide for the accountability and transparency of funding needed for this population.
. The gifted cost study included in the amended substitute bill could allow us to better develop a funding formula where funds could follow the gifted child.
. Please continue to work to improve the accountability for the gifted subgroup. The amended substitute improves on the accountability measures, but there is more work to be done to ensure that appropriate accountability measures are in place for this student population.
Please add your own personal story about why gifted education is important to you and your family. OAGC’s updated legislative platform is now available at www.oagc.com/?q=statebudget . OAGC will provide to testimony to the Senate Finance Education Committee on Wednesday, May 1, 2013. Other gifted witnesses will be needed for public testimony, possibly the week of May 12th.
To find your own senator, please click the following link and scroll to “Find Your Senator.” http://www.ohiosenate.gov/senate/index
Other Senate Contacts Needed:
| Senator | Email Address | Senate Office Phone Number |
| Scott Oelslager – Senate Finance Chair | 614-466-0626 | |
| Randy Gardner (R) – Chair, Senate Finance Education Subcommittee | 614-466-8060 | |
| Peggy Lehner (R) – Vice Chair | 614-466-4538 | |
| Bill Beagle (R) | 614-466-6427 | |
| Cliff Hite (R) | 614-466-8150 | |
| Jim Hughes (R) | 614-466-5981 | |
| Gayle L. Manning (R) | 614-644-7613 | |
| Joe Uecker (R) | 614-466-8082 | |
| Chris Widener (R) | 614-466-3780 | |
| Nina Turner (D) – Ranking Minority Member | 614-466-4583 | |
| Tom Sawyer (D) | 614-466-7041 | |
| Michael Skindell (D) | 614-466-5123 |
Advocacy Update – 4.26.13 – Our Work is Not Done – This week, the Ohio Senate Education Finance Subcommittee began hearings on Amended Substitute House Bill 59. The subcommittee heard from four main witnesses on May 4, 2013: Barbara Mattei-Smith of the Governor’s office, State Superintendent Dr. Dick Ross, the joint education management groups (BASA, OASBA, and OSBA), and finally Dr. Howard Fleeter, longtime education funding expert. Testimony from these individuals can be found at the following link: http://www.ohiosenate.gov/committee/education-finance-subcommittee# . You will need to scroll down the page, click on committee documents and open up the April 24, 2013 tab.
Questioning of the above witnesses provided some insight on concerns of subcommittee members, but it is the off-the-cuff comments heard in Senate hallways about the direction they may take with school funding that are somewhat troubling. Despite overwhelming support from the education community for the House education funding formula changes, it is by no means a sure thing that the Ohio Senate will go along with the House plan. Regardless of the overall funding formula selected by the Ohio Senate, gifted advocates must convince the Senate to maintain the House changes to the gifted funding and accountability component. Gifted advocates need to contact their own senator and the following individuals. The message is simple:
. Please maintain the changes to the gifted funding formula included in the House bill including the funding provided for gifted units at ESCs. These changes will provide for a stable and predictable method of funding after a period of tremendous instability for gifted funding and gifted services. The executive budget’s original proposal did not provide for the accountability and transparency of funding needed for this population.
. The gifted cost study included in the amended substitute bill could allow us to better develop a funding formula where funds could follow the gifted child.
. Please continue to work to improve the accountability for the gifted subgroup. The amended substitute improves on the accountability measures, but there is more work to be done to ensure that appropriate accountability measures are in place for this student population.
Please add your own personal story about why gifted education is important to you and your family. OAGC’s updated legislative platform is now available at www.oagc.com/?q=statebudget . OAGC will provide to testimony to the Senate Finance Education Committee on Wednesday, May 1, 2013. Other gifted witnesses will be needed for public testimony, possibly the week of May 12th.
To find your own senator, please click the following link and scroll to “Find Your Senator.” http://www.ohiosenate.gov/senate/index
Other Senate Contacts Needed:
| Senator | Email Address | Senate Office Phone Number |
| Scott Oelslager – Senate Finance Chair |
| 614-466-0626 |
| Randy Gardner (R) – Chair, Senate Finance Education Subcommittee |
| 614-466-8060 |
| Peggy Lehner (R) – Vice Chair |
| 614-466-4538 |
| Bill Beagle (R) |
| 614-466-6427 |
| Cliff Hite (R) |
| 614-466-8150 |
| Jim Hughes (R) |
| 614-466-5981 |
| Gayle L. Manning (R) |
| 614-644-7613 |
| Joe Uecker (R) |
| 614-466-8082 |
| Chris Widener (R) |
| 614-466-3780 |
| Nina Turner (D) – Ranking Minority Member |
| 614-466-4583 |
| Tom Sawyer (D) – |
| 614-466-7041 |
| Michael Skindell (D) |
| 614-466-5123 |
Advocacy Alert – 4.19.13 – Time to Give Thanks – to the Ohio House – Last evening after protracted debate, the Ohio House passed Sub HB 59. The education portion of the budget was altered from the executive budget proposal in several significant ways. The changes to gifted are as follows:
The funding formula for gifted moved from the governor’s suggested $50 per ADM (Average Daily Membership or average number of pupils in a district) to the following formula:
(1) $5 x ADM for gifted identification in FY2014 and $5.05 x ADM for gifted identification in FY2015)
(2) One gifted coordinator unit shall be allocated for every 3,300 students in a district's gifted unit ADM, with a minimum of 0.5 units and a maximum of 8 units allocated for the district +
(3) One gifted intervention specialist unit shall be allocated for every 1,100 students in a district's gifted unit ADM, with a minimum of 0.3 units allocated for the district.
The unit will be valued at $37,000 in FY2014 and $37,370 in FY2015.
In addition, ESCs will be allocated $3.8 million to fund additional gifted units.
The overall level of funding in the House passed HB 59 for gifted is approximately $85.7 million in 2014 and $86.5 million in 2015.
The bill language also clarifies that the gifted unit funding will be used by districts explicitly for qualified gifted coordinators and gifted intervention specialists. In addition, the House version of the bill calls for a gifted cost study to be completed by March 31, 2014. Elements of the study “shall include, but not be limited to, costs for effective and appropriate identification, staffing, professional development, technology, and materials and supplies at the district level. In addition, the Department shall determine the costs of statewide support needed for this population.”
Beyond funding, the Ohio House made some positive changes to education operating standards, sub-group accountability, and the use of Straight A funding. For a full list of changes, please go to www.oagc.com/?q=statebudget .
There are still some changes that OAGC seeks that were not included in the sub bill. However, the changes that were made to gifted funding and accountability go a long way to support stable funding for gifted children in Ohio. Our challenge will be to keep the revisions to the gifted funding formula intact as the bill moves through the Senate. Look for more information about this early next week. For now, gifted advocates need to thank a number of individuals in the Ohio House to ensure that they will continue to support these changes. The message is simple: Thank you for making the changes to gifted funding and accountability in the HB 59 sub bill. They are much needed improvement over the executive budget provisions for gifted education.
Also, please contact your own representative by going to the following link an scrolling to member search: http://www.ohiohouse.gov/
The contact information for the other individuals is below:
Advocacy Update 4.9.13 -- Summary of Changes related to Gifted in the Sub House Bill 59 -- While by no means, exhaustive, here is a quick list of provisions in Sub House Bill 59 that relate to gifted. To download the entire sub bill or to access a summary of the provisions, please go to http://www.ohiohouse.gov/committee/finance-and-appropriations . You can click on the April 9 tab to download the relevant documents.
Funding – Changes the gifted funding formula from $50 per ADM to $5 per ADM for identification and gifted units based on the following formula:
(1) One gifted coordinator unit shall be allocated for every 3,300 students in a district's gifted unit ADM, with a minimum of 0.5 units and a maximum of 8 units allocated for the district.
(2) One gifted intervention specialist unit shall be allocated for every 1,100 students in a district's gifted unit ADM, with a minimum of 0.3 units allocated for the district.
The unit will be valued at $37,000 in FY2014 and $37,370 in FY2015.
In addition, ESCs will be allocated $3.8 million to fund additional gifted units.
Accountability – The sub-group accountability section is somewhat changed requiring the state board to determine satisfactory achievement and progress of the sub-groups and requiring the district to submit an improvement plan for approval if their performance is unsatisfactory.
Operating Standards – The operating standards language changes are altered significantly and include language that requires ODE to ensure that any achievement gap closure is not achieved by suppressing the growth of highest achieving students and requiring the state board of education to develop minimum operating standards that require “providing children access to a general education of high quality according to the learning needs of each individual, including students with disabilities, economically disadvantaged students, limited English proficient students, and students identified as gifted.”
Straight A Fund – The Straight A innovation funds are cut in the sub bill but not entirely eliminated. In addition, the purpose of the funds is more carefully delineated. Grants will be given a priority if the goals of the projects meet several criteria on being the “achievement and progress for each subgroup of students specified under division (A) of section 3317.40 of the Revised Code”
College Credit Plus – This language was removed from the bill. It will probably go into a separate bill for consideration.
Advocacy Update 4.5.13 -- Preview and Preparation for Next Week and March 20th Recap
Next week – The House Finance committee is expected to accept a budget sub-bill (HB59) on Tuesday, April 9th at 3:00 pm. The Finance committee will then have hearings beginning at 9:00 AM on April 10th, 11th, and 12th. The week after, an omnibus amendment along with other amendments will be accepted by House Finance. The Finance committee will likely vote the bill out of committee on Tuesday, April 16th so that the bill can head to the House floor for a vote by April 18th. At that point, the bill will move to the Senate, where hearing will begin the third week of April.
While we do not know for sure what the House will do with gifted funding, given some of the comments from committee members it is possible that there will be a change in how gifted funding is distributed and accounted for in the sub-bill. From various news reports, it appears likely that many of the non-funding pieces related to education may be removed from the bill. Whatever happens, gifted advocates will need to be prepared to respond to the sub bill quickly when we find out what is in the bill. So please watch this page carefully or follow OAGC on facebook or anngift on twitter for updates. If things are changed favorably, we will need to think legislators profusely, if things are not changed or changed in a way that is in the best interest of gifted children, we will need to press our case fairly aggressively.
March 20th recap -- As some of you are aware representatives from the gifted community testified before House Finance on March 20th. As I needed to leave the hearing as soon as I testified, Colleen Boyle took hearing notes, which I will share below with you. All testimony from that hearing is posted at www.oagc.com/?q=statebudget .
Hearing Summary -- Four witnesses testified on behalf of gifted education. Ann Sheldon provided the OAGC testimony. Rachel Winters, President of OAGC also spoke about OAGC’s position on the bill, Jennifer Pennick shared her concerns as a parent of gifted children, and Barb Bodart spoke about gifted units through ESCs. While committee members were attentive to all witnesses, Rachel Winters received the only questions on gifted:
Representative Maag asked if she knew of data regarding poor outcomes for gifted students left unserved. Rachel referenced a body of research supporting that claim.
Representative Stebelton asked if she recommended a return to unit funding. Rachel replied accountability for spending was the main concern. Whether it is units or some other mechanism, accountability to ensure gifted funds go to gifted services provided by trained and licensed gifted professionals is the key for proper accountability.
Representative Beck asked why the 200 districts would go without gifted services Rachel said it is easy to believe the myth that gifted children will be okay if left alone. When superintendents are faced with touch choices, they may relay on the inaccurate perception and the lack of a service mandate or accountability. Representative Beck asked about options for students in districts without services. Rachel said for many students, especially those in rural districts, options are not available due to economic or geographic factors.
Other witnesses testifying on various aspects of HB59 and education funding that mentioned gifted or issues affecting gifted:
C. Todd Jones, President of the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities of Ohio spoke regarding several issues related to higher education funding in the bill. One of the positions was related to PSEO/College Credit Plus. He felt the way the program was set up in HB59 would provide incentives to the colleges but disincentives to local districts. Jones asked for the follow provisions:
- language that will ensure districts followed rules regarding granting credit for core high school courses
- requirement that high schools to weight college courses like they do other honors and AP courses so students do not avoid college courses to protect class ranking
- exempt students from high school end of course exams for classes taken at the college level
- equitable payments
- direct communication between the state agencies and participating universities
- an option of waiving some admissions criteria typically applied to incoming college freshman if the university and local district have such a relationship that the district would verify readiness of the program participant
- open the program to home school students
- ensure participating colleges and universities granting credit are truly accredited in accordance with the Ohio Board of Regents and a regional accreditation organization
Russ Harris representing OEA highlighted the subgroup compliance language and referenced prior testimony about gifted. He reiterated OAGC's position that there was no definition of "consistent progress and claimed there is no evidence of the capabilities of outside providers to better serve students. Harris also requested the Straight A fund be repurposed and added back into formula funding.
Ann Brennan from the Ohio School Psychologists Association stated their organization supports adding a requirement that gifted dollars be spent on gifted students.
Other Items of Interest
BASA Hosts Regional Meetings for Ross, Legislative Update
The Buckeye Association of School Administrators (BASA) will host regional meetings this month to introduce newly installed state Superintendent Dick Ross and provide a legislative update on the school funding plan and other education policies of the General Assembly.Regional meetings are as follows:
April 11: Bowling Green State University, Levis Commons, 8:30 – 11:45 a.m.
April 12: Hamilton County Educational Service Center, 8:30 – 11:45 a.m.
April 15: Cuyahoga Valley Career Center, Brecksville, 8:30 – 11:45 a.m.
April 17: Logan-Hocking High School, Logan, 8:30 – 11:45 a.m.
April 18: BASA, Columbus, 8:30 – 11:45 a.m.
Registration information can be found at www.basa-ohio.org/events/eventresults.aspx?Category=Region%20Meetings&Keyword=&MonthNumber=4&FromSearch=True.
Advocacy Update 3.15.13 – Budget Watch: What’s Ahead and What’s Transpired -- The next week will bring the final opportunity to testify before the House Finance committee before the General Assembly goes on Spring break. If you wish to testify on gifted or other primary and secondary issues, you may do so on March 20th in Room 313 at the Statehouse before the House Finance committee beginning at 9:00 AM. There will be a break as House session begins at 1:00 PM. Please email Ann Sheldon at anngift@aol.com for details on how to testify or to submit written testimony to the committee. I am in particular need of a parent to testify before the full House Finance committee.
Weekly Recap -- This week brought an end to three weeks of intense hearings held before the House Finance Primary and Secondary Education subcommittee. This week was open to public testimony. The hearing rooms were packed with superintendents and others talking mostly about the inadequacies of the funding formula, the low base cost, transportation formula confusion, and ESC funding decreases. Two witnesses for gifted education submitted written testimony: Faith Denslow, President of the Sandusky Board of Education and Rachel Smethers-Winters, President of the Ohio Association for Gifted Children. Their testimony can be found at www.oagc.com/?q=statebudget . Other testimony of interest is from Ann Brennan on March 13, 2013 of the Ohio School Psychologist Association, one of the few organizations supporting gifted funding and accountability. In addition, testimony from David Branch, Holli Stevenson and her son, and Isabel Bozada on March 14, 2013 are good reads. David Branch, the superintendent of Muskingum Valley ESC was one of the few if only superintendents to make a pitch for gifted funding. After his testimony, he was asked by Representative Maag whether he believed that gifted funding should be earmarked specifically for gifted students. Branch said yes.
You can access their testimony by going to: http://www.ohiohouse.gov/committee/primary-and-secondary-education-subcommittee . Click on the downward arrow on the date and all the testimony can be downloaded by name of the witness.
After next week, the budget process now goes “dark” for a few weeks. At this point, House Finance committee members and others in the House will submit amendments to be drafted on various issues on HB 59. These amendments will be submitted by the end of next week. Staff in the majority caucus and at the Legislative Service Commission will run simulations of proposed changes. And over the next few weeks, the House Finance chair will work with his subcommittees and others to determine what amendments will go into a sub-bill. Technically, the General Assembly takes two weeks off for Spring break from March 25 to April 7. But that is when the majority of the work in the House will take place in reshaping this bill. The introduction of a sub-bill will likely take place in House Finance the week of April 8. The goal is for the bill to be ready for the Senate to consider by April 18, which means that there will be some intense committee work with more testimony, more amendments, and, likely, a very lively floor debate. In addition to the education plan, the members of the House will need to make some major decisions about Medicaid expansion and tax reform.
I urge you all to continue to contact your legislators to tell them concerns about gifted education funding in the governor’s plan. You can contact them by going to www.oagc.com/?q=leginfo .
Other Issues:
Gifted Public Event -- Educating Our Brightest -- The Fordham Foundation in conjunction with OAGC is hosting a public event on March 20th, 2013 at the Columbus Art Museum from 7:30 AM to 9:00 AM. The event features Fordham Foundation’s Checker Finn and a panel discussion featuring Rep. Hayes, Chairman of the House Finance Primary and Secondary Education Committee, Chad Aldis, a parent, Marty Bowe, Superintendent of Perry Local Schools, and Ann Sheldon, OAGC Executive Director. Columbus Dispatch report Jennifer Smith Richards will moderate the panel discussion. To attend, please click here.
New State Superintendent of Public Instruction – Ohio has a new state superintendent. It should be no surprise that Dr. Richard (Dick) Ross, who currently heads up Governor Kasich’s Office of 21st Century Education will take over helm at the Ohio Department of Education. Dr. Ross, along with Barbara Mattei-Smith were the architects of the governor’s “Achievement Everywhere” education funding and reform plan. Acting superintendent Michael Sawyers, who was passed over for thepermament position, tendered his resignation. This leaves a huge gap in knowledge at ODE for Dr. Ross to fill.
Death of State Board of Education Member – Jeff Hardin, one of the elected State Board of Education members passed away this week. A unique and sometimes outspoken figure, Mr. Hardin was passionate about his support of gifted students, the arts, post secondary enrollment options, and libraries.
Advocacy Update 3.8.13 – Gifted Testimony on March 5, 2013 -- Gifted education witnesses were the first group to testify on HB 59, the biennial budget bill, before the House Primary and Secondary Education Subcommittee. Six witnesses testified: Ann Sheldon (OAGC Executive Director), Emma Jean Stanley (student), Kathleen Stanley (student), Kimberley Curran (parent), Hayley (student), and Sally Roberts (retired gifted coordinator and past president of OAGC). In addition, three individuals submitted written testimony and two witnesses will testify next week. All groups today were limited to the number of witnesses that were allowed to testify. While clearly on a tight timetable, subcommittee members were actively attentive and asked many questions of all the witnesses. The students, of course, were the stars of the morning. Interestingly, this is the first time the subcommittee has actually seen students testify on the education budget. They were a breath of fresh air. Testimony for all witnesses is available at www.oagc.com/?q=statebudget . Also included on that page is a link to the Gongwer and Hannah account of the day’s testimony. Here is a very loose description of the subcommittee questions:
1st Witness -- Ann Sheldon:
Rep. Stebelton: What I hear you saying is that you would like to see a categorical funding mechanism? That the funding for gifted in this system needs to be tied directly to gifted students and there needs to be direct accountability for services to students? Answer – Yes. We need measures of accountability at both the district and student level. Funding with transparency is the key. Rep. Stebelton: Am I correct in assuming that you are concerned that the $50 per ADM will merely get thrown into the pot if it is in the general fund and not be used for gifted students? Answer: Yes, that is exactly what we believe will happen.
Rep. Lundy: I am concerned about the accountability of the funding going to community schools. Have you talked to anyone at the community schools to ask if they would support gifted students with these funds? Answer: There are very few community schools that are geared toward gifted students and many community schools have missions that have nothing to with gifted education. Community schools should have to agree to follow both operating standards and revised code if they are to receive gifted funding.
Rep. Maag: Is there plan on how to fix this in your testimony? Is there a perfect solution? Answer – There may not be a perfect solution but there are better ways to account for funding and services. For example, we may want to look at how North Carolina requires district plans for gifted services to be submitted based on the needs in their districts. They would be held accountable to the plan. On the student level, it would be appropriate to codify the written education plan that is required in the operating standards with student goals and services outlined along with the goals for that child and how they would be met. Rep. Maag: Do you believe ESCS should receive all the gifted funding and provide services to districts? Answer – No, not all gifted funding should flow through the ESCs, but there are a number of smaller districts that depend on the services offered by ESCs. And ESCs can play a critical role in developing regional services and can be leaders in developing alternative services such as blended learning and online gifted programs. The ESCs have hatched a number of creative plans.
Rep. Hayes: Explain to me how districts identify gifted children? They don’t test every child, do they? Answer: Each district submits a plan and assess based on the needs of their districts. Ideally, all districts will do whole grade level testing at least two grade levels. It is important to cast a wide net to catch the students who might be referred by a teacher or parent. Rep Hayes: Someone said that $50 per student would barely be enough to identify gifted much less serve them. But you’ve stated that the $85 million would fund the former unit funding rule. I assume there enough money to do more than identify gifted students? Answer: $85 million would pay for an incredible amount of testing! That level of funding can do much more than identify. It needs to be used for services.
Rep. Phillips -- If Value-added isn’t a cure-all for output measures, what other measures might be used. Answer – A wide variety could be considered included level of accelerated students, number of students taking AP and PSEO at the high school, number of students taking advanced classes in middle school and perhaps accountability based on performance measures outlined in a students’ written education plan. The problem is that to base all accountability measures on outputs that are not designed is a recipe for disaster. The outputs have to be designed, tested as accurate, and in place before funding can be tied exclusively to the measures. Rep. Phillips also asked about what funding model would work best for gifted and asked particularly about the building blocks model. Answer: The gifted funding mechanism could work in a variety of ways to be consistent with other parts of the formula but that the building blocks method did appear to be an effective approach and that gifted cost elements could be incorporated to build a gifted block.
2nd Witness -- Emma-Jean Stanley (4th grader) -- Emma fielded several questions from subcommittee members in a very professional manner including questions from Rep. Stebelton about her reading level (9th grade) and whether she learns anything in her reading class (not really). He also asked how she felt in the regular classroom. Answer -- She said she was really bored and the work was so easy that she whipped through it. At one point she didn't want to go to school because she didn't learn anything. Rep. Maag about whether she would prefer to be accelerated fully or if she would like to have her work differentiated in class. Answer – She’s tried having work differentiated in class and that hasn’t worked out so well so she would rather be accelerated. Rep. Lundy asked about her acceleration and how difficult it has been. Answer – it has been a little difficult because the kids are older, but she is doing okay and the work isn’t that hard even in 5th grade.
3rd Witness -- Kathleen Stanley (parent of Emma) – After Kathleen’s testimony one legislator said that there were no questions to ask because she said it all. It was very strong testimony. Rep. Lundy did ask about transportation between elementary and middle school buildings for accelerated classes and wondered how that worked. He had never thought of that as an issue before. Answer – students take the early morning classes at the other building typically and then go back to the home school for the rest of the classes. The district has done this before for other students.
4th Witness – Kimberley Curran (parent) – After emotionally-stirring testimony about the impact of the loss of gifted services for her children, Rep. Lundy asked what the she was going to do for her son next year. Her response was that she didn’t know. She may have to put him private school as there was no open enrollment in nearby school districts. But it was clear he would not get what he needed at the school he was in, and that he could not repeat another devastating year there.
Rep. Hayes questioned her characterization of the size of the district. She felt it was a small district size wise, but geographically it is very spread out.
5th Witness – Hayley Curran (Junior high school student) – After testifying about the differences between her experiences with gifted and her siblings’ experiences without, Hayley received a question from Rep. Lundy about whether the district encourage peer mentoring between older and younger gifted students. Answer – No. There is nothing. Rep. Hayes asked what she would do if she did not get into OSU to do PSEO her senior year. Answer – PSEO was the only option as she had run out of coursework at the high school. There is no plan B.
6th Witness – Sally Roberts – After delivering a no-holds bar assessment of the current situation for gifted children, Rep. Phillips asked what in the operating standards supported gifted students. Answer – There is a special section for gifted students covering things like well-defined and flexible service models, staff ratios to ensure caseloads aren’t too high and the written education plan. Strengthening the written education plan was the guide to services. This is critical.
While several other witnesses testified on other issues, no group of witnesses received more questions from the subcommittee as gifted did. Interestingly, one of the witnesses for ESCs was asked for comment about the pre-school and gifted education units that were eliminated as part of the budget. The witness, Craig Burford, indicated that he agreed with the OAGC stance of taking a more staged approach so there is no disruption in services.
In addition to the “live” witnesses, three others submitted written testimony.The gifted community should be incredibly proud of the witnesses representing children, parents, and gifted professionals. I encourage all of you to read some of the testimony at www.oagc.com/?q=statebudget. Hopefully, it will inspire to become more involved in the process. We do not have a place in the discussion, if we do not tell our story.
Advocacy Update 3.1.13 – A Rising Tide and Other Budget Lines – This week was a busy one at the Statehouse. There are more documents on the OAGC budget page including: the education red book, the LSC budget analysis of the budget, and OAGC’s Legislative Position paper (under other budget documents). The link to all of these documents is http://oagc.com/?q=statebudget .The House Finance Primary and Secondary Education Committee heard testimony from multiple groups including all of the major education groups, seven witnesses from the Ohio Department of Education and several education foundations. The most interesting testimony was from Dick Ross and Barbara Mattei-Smith, representing the governor’s office on Tuesday, February 26, 2013. All of the testimony can be accessed at: http://www.ohiohouse.gov/committee/primary-and-secondary-education-subcommittee .Click on the arrow by each date for links to the written testimony. I am providing a loose transcript of questions and answers related to gifted from the governor’s education staff:
Rep. Stebelton – I am struggling with the issue of funding for gifted children. You are funding them at $50 per ADM. 1. The funding is not tied specifically to gifted children and 2. Can you explain how districts will be held accountable? Answer – Barb Mattei-Smith-- The approach we took was not to restrict funding. We aren’t saying that you have to spend every penny on gifted students. We want to lift the boat of all children. We don’t hold them accountable for how they spend it. We hold them accountable for how students perform. So, as an accountability measure we are saying that you have will be output measures. We are going to have value-added coming up and some other report card measures. We are not telling districts how to spend their money, but we have to decide how districts will be held accountable and if they don’t meet certain standards then they have to meet and partner with other districts who can better meet gifted student needs.
Rep. Stebelton -- When will districts be held accountable for the performance of gifted students? Mattei-Smith -- It will be on the report card. It may be several years out.
Rep. Stebelton -- So in 2016 or so there may be some accountability? Dick Ross -- We haven’t laid this out in our proposal when that would happen. Mattei-Smith - The report card is in flux. We feel strongly that we need our districts to supportive in developing these output measures by not being so prescriptive on how you use the funding out of the gate.
Other questions on gifted came from Rep. Lundy and Rep. Phillips:
Rep. Lundy: Over 500 districts for gifted services from the ESCs. With the funding being eliminated and many districts being flat funding, doesn’t this result in fewer gifted funds? Mattei-Smith: There are two sources of funding at ESCs. 1. Gifted unit funding, which we’ve eliminated. But overall funding for gifted increased to districts so this more than compensates for the loss on the district funding side. (Note from Ann: Of course, as districts won’t have to spend those funds on gifted, it is meaningless source of funding for flat-funded districts). 2. ESCs get funds for extended supervisors, some of the can be used for gifted coordination.
Rep. Phillips -- Have you been in conversation with the gifted community and their parents about what they need to judge what is appropriate progress for this population? Mattei Smith – Dick has had conversations with the gifted community and I’ve talked to some parents. It is not just passing the test but value-added. We’ve got opportunities down the road to do more than just 4 – 8. It will be expanded. But maybe we should look at kids getting kids to college earlier and participating in AP and IB. Again we didn’t want to put specific conversations now because so much is changing. How you measure that progress takes time to discuss, which is why it isn’t the bill. Districts are still required to identify.
To Recap: There is more money for gifted in the formula, but districts don’t have to use it on gifted because general levels of enrichment will lift all academic boats. There will be performance measures for gifted students but they aren’t developed, and there is no plan or timeframe to do so. And maybe the performance measures for gifted should go beyond minimum high school graduation requirements, but right now the bill says they will not be so there is no ability for ODE to go beyond that level.
This is a far cry from the comprehensive student-centered funding and reform system that gifted advocates were expecting from the executive budget. It may be helpful at this time for the governor to hear from parents and other members of the gifted community on his staff’s “plan” for gifted students that has no specified performance measures, no timeframe to develop them, no transparency or accountability for gifted funding allocated, and no support for individual gifted students or their parents.
Points you may wish to make:
1. General enrichment activities for all students do little or nothing for gifted students.
2. The public was promised a system where funding and accountability followed each child and would ensure their individual needs would be met. Where is that plan for gifted students? And where are is the accountability promised that these students would have their needs met?
3. Eliminating transparency of funding accountability with no plan to ensure that the individual gifted child’s needs are met fails the basic tenets of the governor’s education funding philosophy and it will hurt gifted children.
Please add your own story and thoughts. You may send your comments to: http://www.governor.ohio.gov/Contact/ContacttheGovernor.aspx
You should also continue to send emails and contact your own legislators. The link to contact information is here: http://www.oagc.com/?q=leginfo .
Other testimony regarding gifted came on Friday, 3.1.13. Dr. Bill Phillis of the Coalition for Equity and Adequacy testified. At the end of his testimony, Dr. Phillis stated that to throw $50 per pupil in the formula for gifted and expect something to happen for gifted students was not realistic. He said the funds have to be directly allocated for that population. Rep. Stebelton asked Dr. Phillis about this comment and asked him if what he meant was that we need some structure about how the funds for gifted are to be spent and some accountability about how the funds are spent. Phillis affirmed that was his belief.
Later that day as the education management groups testified, Rep. Philips also questioned the representatives with regard to subgroups. Again, a loose transcript:
Representative Phillips – Let’s talk about subgroups and measuring subgroup progress especially with regard to gifted. Is this workable given the size of the subgroups? How do we cope with this under this accountability plan? Tom Ash of BASA (superintendent’s group): Subgroup performance is an issue. The subgroup size is 30 under federal law. There may not be a subgroup of 30 in an entire district. Or the subgroup size exists at the district level but not in each of the buildings. So how do we identify where the problem is if the district as a whole is not doing well? With regard to gifted, administrative code requires us to identify but this formula doesn’t say how to spend gifted dollars. It is difficult to track progress for gifted by subgroup because of the limited number of gifted students. (Note from Ann: Actually, Ohio Revised Code requires districts to identify.)
Advocacy Update 2.23.13 – Biennial Budget Update -- There was not much legislative action with regard to the education budget this week. Most of this week’s emphasis was on the governor’s State of the State speech. The other big news is that 30 individuals have expressed interest in becoming Ohio’s next state superintendent, including the Governor’s top education aide, Richard Ross. Some in the media have speculated that it is foregone conclusion that the state board will ultimately select Dr. Ross. Next week, the House Finance Primary and Secondary Education Subcommittee will start meeting in earnest with the governor’s education staff scheduled to testify on February 26, ODE staff on February 28, education foundation groups on February 29, and major education groups on March 1. The topic of gifted education is scheduled for March 5.
Gifted advocates should continue to email their House representatives. The message is simple:
1. The funding methodology and accountability mechanisms for gifted students in the executive bill need to be reworked.
2. Gifted funding and accountability need to follow the gifted child.
3. Accountability measures for gifted students need to be different for the other sub-groups who have federal mandates to protect them and for whom minimum high school standards might be appropriate goals.
4. Districts have had almost complete flexibility to use gifted funds for the past four years. The end result is that there has been a 35% drop in services. Districts must be held accountable for how funds are spent and for serving all children, including gifted children.
5. The proposed rewrite of the operating standards to cover only health and safety concerns and the requirements necessary to ensure each student “has mastered a common knowledge base in order to graduate from high school” is a low level standard that will suppress the growth of the state’s highest achieving students.
The link to House legislator email addresses is http://www.ohiohouse.gov/ . For more information about the impact of HB 59 on gifted students, please download the following analysis at http://www.oagc.com/files/HB59%20Gifted%20Analysis.2.23.13.pdf . I will be tweeting and updating this page throughout the week as the primary and secondary committee meets. Follow me at www.twitter.com/anngift for more frequent updates.
Advocacy Update – 2.15.13 – The Biennial Budget Update -- (NOTE: All documents referred to in this post can be downloaded at www.oagc.com/?q=statebudget.) This week, the actual bill language for the budget (House Bill 59) was released. The document which is over 4,000 pages usually provides most of the answers to how areas are specifically funding and what policies are to be introduced. Unfortunately, while the specifics for gifted funding and accountability are outlined in the bill, the raise more questions than answers. To a view a draft of my initial analysis of the bill language regarding gifted and funding accountability, please go to the link above. The bottom line is this: gifted is funded at $50per ADM (not per gifted student). There is almost no accountability for the funds, just some vague language that gifted kids need to meet high school graduation standards as the other sub-groups (ELL, Students with Disabilities, Students in Poverty). If they do not over some unspecified period of time the district will have to partner with an organization that will help them out. That’s it. Gifted advocates may wish to watch the Governor’s education gurus speak about the education budget and reform before the House Education Committee on February 13, 2013. The first hour or so is testimony. The second half is questions from the committee. The only question regarding gifted was from House Finance Primary and Secondary Chair Rep. Bill Hayes, who asked why gifted funding didn’t follow the child. Barbara Mattei-Smith, from the governor’s office replied that there wasn’t accurate data to determine the cost of services and that districts would have to meet value-added growth for the population and gifted kids would have to pass the state assessments or the district would have to give the gifted money to another organization to run services for gifted. Ms. Mattei-Smith’s is surprising on several levels. First, there are multiple studies, funding models, and expenditure data from ODE that could have been used to determine gifted student weights or funding amounts. Second, the accountability described for the gifted funding is beyond inadequate.
Gifted advocates need to begin emailing their House representatives now! The message is simple:
1. The funding methodology and accountability mechanism for gifted students in the executive bill need to be reworked.
2. Gifted funding and accountability need to follow the gifted child.
3. Accountability measures for gifted students need to be different for the other sub-groups who have federal mandates to protect them and for whom minimum high school standards might be appropriate goals.
4. Districts have had almost complete flexibility to use gifted funds for the past four years. The end result is that there has been a 35% drop in services. Districts must be held accountable for how funds are spent and for serving all children, including gifted children.
The link to House legislator email addresses is http://www.ohiohouse.gov/ .
Also note, gifted testimony before the House Finance Primary and Secondary Education SubCommittee is scheduled for March 5, 2013 at 8:30 at the Ohio Statehouse. I will need at least six to eight witnesses to share their views on the governor’s plan. Public testimony on all issues begins on March 12th. Please email me at anngift@aol.com if you can testify.
Links to the initial analysis of gifted funding and accountability (a must read), the House Finance Primary and Secondary Education Subcommittee schedule, testimony for Barb Mattei-Smith and Dick Ross, HB 59, and more are all at www.oagc.com/?q=statebudget.
Here is the link to the February 13th testimony on http://www.ohiochannel.org/MediaLibrary/Media.aspx?fileId=138164
Gifted discussion initiated by Rep. Hayes (R) begins at minute 71. A very interesting exchange between Rep. Debbie Phillips (D) and Barb Mattei-Smith begins at minute 116:20. The most poignant comments of the hearing regarding opportunities for students in Gallia County vs. Olentangy made by Rep. Ryan Smith (R) begin at minute 132.30.
Advocacy Update – 2.7.13 – The Biennial Budget Bossa Nova Begins! -- (NOTE: All documents referred to in this post can be downloaded at www.oagc.com/?q=statebudget. This week marked the official kick-off to the Ohio Biennial Budget Process. While the education community saw a (conceptual) preview last week, the Governor’s office released more details in the budget blue books (named for the blue binders in which they were historically bound). OBM (Office of Budget and Management) Director Tim Keen presented the overall budget to the Ohio House Finance Committee on Tuesday, 2/5/13. The director spent two hours in the morning going over 68 pages of testimony. Later in the afternoon, he spent several hours responding to questions about all aspects of the budget. The House Finance hearings for the first time in history are now being streamed live, which will allow everyone to view them in real time or in archives. In the many hours of questioning, the only question about gifted came almost three hours into the afternoon testimony. Chairman Amstutz asked about the “layers” of funding included in foundation formula and wondered if these were just block grants or if there was some expectation that the funds would be spent on the areas outlined. The usually unflappable Keen stuttered a bit in his response, but ultimately said that though he didn’t know if there would be specific regulations, and that there was “some expectation” that directed funds for special populations should be used to benefit those populations. With regard to gifted, Keen stated, “Gifted dollars are provided to serve the gifted kids.” How this will work without specific spending guidelines or regulations is unclear. You can watch the exchange beginning approximately at minute 171 at http://www.ohiochannel.org/MediaLibrary/Media.aspx?fileId=138134
Another interesting question came from Rep. Debbie Phillips who wondered about potential double counting of funds and the deductions from funding for vouchers, community schools etc. This exchange begins a little after minute 194 at http://www.ohiochannel.org/MediaLibrary/Media.aspx?fileId=138134 . It is a long exchange but well worth listening to, even drawing praise from Chairman Amstutz.
On Wednesday, 2/6/13, the governor’s office released district spreadsheets outlining the breakout of the foundation funding. It is important to note that these spreadsheets do not include the deductions for voucher and community school students so the numbers are inflated. I’ve posted both the OBM document as well as a document that compares the governor’s budget funding (under other documents) at the 2012 student levels that do not include the community school or voucher students. This may be more useful for districts trying to determine the true level of gifted funding. Also, under "other documents" is a fact sheet on the state of gifted education in Ohio. It is a sobering look at how services have declined.
Until the actual budget bill is introduced, we won’t actually know how the funding “formula” works, the level of accountability attached to the funding, or the regulations that will be removed as barriers. However, there are already some questions that need to be answered:
1. If funding is to follow the child and all other categories of special needs children have funds based on the student count of each category, why are the gifted funds based on all students? Would Ohio still provide gifted funds to over 200 districts that provide no gifted services? What happens when students not identified as gifted leave the district to community schools and voucher programs? Will those funds leave with the non-gifted student? Will community schools be required to spend gifted funds on gifted identification and service? What is the accountability for funds and services to gifted children in the governor’s formula? Will districts be required to serve all gifted students?
2. Is the formula based on past gifted cost studies? If not, what is the basis for the funding level? Is the funding level sufficient to ensure all gifted students are served?
3. Services to gifted children have been slashed by 35% in the past four years when barriers in the use of gifted funding were removed. How does governor’s plan reverse this trend?
In watching the governor speak about gifted education in his town hall meetings, he does appear to be sincere in his desire to make sure that the needs of these students are met. As I requested when Governor Strickland’s education funding plan came out, it is important to ask the critical questions about the plan but to do so in a constructive and positive way. So please ask your legislators these questions. The link to legislator contact information is also on the state budget page on the OAGC website.
The budget process is long and deliberative for a reason. There are likely to be many changes in the budget as it moves through the House and Senate. Gifted advocates will need to make sure that we shape the governor’s education reform plan in a way that will best meet the needs of gifted students.
Stay tuned for next week’s adventures in budgeting as the House Finance Committee hears from Dick Ross and Barbara Matei-Smith from the governor’s office on education funding on Wednesday, 2/13/13 at 9:00 AM. Don’t forget it will be recorded, so you can watch it later in the evening instead of American Idol. The budget bill language is also expected to be introduced next week.
Advocacy Update 1.31.2013 Governor Kasich Releases Budget Plan – Governor Kasich released an overview of his education reform plan (a.k.a budget) today at a meeting geared toward superintendents. Please go to the following link for the information that was released -- http://www.oagc.com/files/KasichsFundingPlan1.31.12.pdf . The details will not be revealed until the budget blue book is released on Tuesday, February 4th, 2013. And, in fact, we will not know all of the details until the budget bill is released. Governor Kasich indicated that he wants gifted students to “move forward.” The initial plan for gifted is a distribution of $50 per ADM for a total of $85.2 million, which presumably means that this amount is not equalized. It appears to be a somewhat simplistic approach, and we don’t know what level of accountability for service will be attached to these funds. So until the details are known, it is impossible to analyze the impact. The good news is that as opposed to 2009, there is a substantial line item for gifted education funding. It is a good starting point for the budget process that begins next week. One item that is disturbing is the apparent defunding of the Educational Service Centers, which probably means the gifted units that are currently in place are in jeopardy. Keep tuned, folks, the budget season has begun.
Don't forget to watch the Virtual Town Hall this evening at 6:00 pm at ohiochannel.org . You can submit questions through www.Facebook.com/JohnRKasich or twitter using the #OHEDU hashtag.
Advocacy Update – 1.18.13 – Preparing for the Storm – As most of you are aware, the governor plans to introduce the state budget the first week of February. He has indicated in the press, that he will unveil his education funding plan ahead of the budget and has warned that it will be very complicated. From what I understand, not even the House and Senate leaders know what is to be included in the plan at this point. However, the governor’s office is making plans to share the plan with superintendents from around the state and will then hold at least one town meeting. I will provide any information on these meetings as I receive them on this web page.
Legislative Directories -- In preparation for the budget hearings, I have put together information on the Senate committees for the 130th General Assembly. This can be found at the following link: http://www.oagc.com/?q=leginfo. When the House committee members are released, I will post those as well. The two very important committees in the Senate are the Senate Finance Subcommittee on Education, chaired by Senator Randy Gardner, and the Senate Finance Committee, chaired by Senator Scott Oelslager. Both of these senators have been friends of gifted in the past. Gifted advocates should be making contact with their legislators to let them know that you expect their support for the needs of gifted children in the budget. And please check the directories to see if any of your senators are on the two very important committees.
Accountability – There has been a tremendous amount of confusion about the gifted accountability provisions in HB 555. For a full summary of the changes, please go to http://www.oagc.com/?q=advocacyupdates . In addition, you can find the full bill at this link along with a draft of the ODE Draft Statement of Work. There are some very positive changes for gifted in HB 555, but the implementation of the changes is critical to how this will impact gifted children at the district level.
Advocacy Corner – The Winter Advocacy Corner is now available at http://www.oagc.com/?q=advocacycorner . Included is an overview of how facts are sometimes used to misrepresent the truth. Part of this article is highlighted in the High Ability blog at http://highability.wordpress.com/2013/01/18/stupid-stubborn-facts/
Advocacy Update 12.5.12 – HB 555 – Last Thursday the Ohio House passed HB 555, which will overhaul the state’s accountability system. The overall shift in accountability is profoundly different from the current system which is largely based on student passage rates on the current Ohio Achievement Assessments and the Ohio Graduation Test. It is clear that the new accountability system will be heavily driven by college- and career readiness standards. The new system will grade multiple components including:
Performance index scores
Performance Indicators met (including the gifted performance indicator
AMO (Annual Measurable Objectives) Replaces the current AYP (Annual Yearly Progress). This measure is required for submission to the U.S. Department of Education
Student progress measures including
o Value-Added Composite with a subgroup factor impact for A grades.
o Value-added subgroups included a sub-group for gifted students, students with disabilities, and lowest performance quintile)
· Graduation Rate for 4 & 5 year cohorts
· Kindergarten through third grade literacy rate
· College and Career readiness standards including the following:
o National Standardized test for college admission participation rate and average score
o Participation and Performance on Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate Exams
o College Remediation Rates
o College and Career-ready assessment exam
o Post-secondary Earned Credits
o Honors Diplomas earned
o Industry credentials earned
There are several positive changes in the bill for gifted children in terms of accountability:
· A value-added sub-group component includes gifted students identified in the superior cognitive areas as well as those identified in any specific academic areas assessed.
· The gifted performance indicator as included as one of the indicators to be met in the performance indicator component. The bill outlines that the following elements will be part of the indicator: level of services provided, performance of gifted students on state assessments, value-added growth of gifted students in appropriate areas, level of gifted identification effort, appropriate licensed staff levels, level of professional development provided to general education teachers working with gifted students, and gifted education spending
· Requires that all sub-groups in value-added sub-group component be graded a ”B” or above in order for districts to receive an “A” in the their full value-added composite score.
· Assigns a greater weight to accelerated students who are taking above-grade level assessments. A score of proficient or above receives the next category weight. ODE will assign an additional weight for those students scoring at the advanced level. These weights affect the performance index for each year after the student is accelerated.
These are all substantial gains for gifted students who have been largely neglected in Ohio’s accountability system. Hearings on HB 555 were held this week in the Senate Education Committee. The OAGC testimony can be found at: http://www.oagc.com/files/Testimony%20on%20HB555.forSenate.12.5.12.pdf .
The large education management groups oppose several provisions in the bill including:
1. Implementing the transition should not start during the current school year;.
2. Using letter grades for certain components on the dashboard that school districts such as Advanced Placement participation rate and test scores, dual Enrollment Program participation rate, national standardized test for college admission — participation rate and average score, and kindergarten through third grade literacy rate;
3. Assigning schools and districts a composite score;
4. Raising the student “cut score” on state tests through the anticipated PARCC assessments, while at the same time raising the “standard” for the passage rate for districts from 75% to 80%;
5. Subjecting districts currently rated “continuous improvement” and above to identification for purposes of EdChoice vouchers and charter school expansion before the changes are fully implemented in three years.
The bill is expected to be voted out of Senate Education on the morning of Tuesday, November 11, and be voted on the Senate floor later that afternoon. There will likely be major changes to the college and career readiness standards as a result of intense lobbying from the education management groups.