Hello everyone,
Margaret DeLacy from the Oregon Association for Talented and Gifted sent us the following message. Her main questions are in bold at the bottom. I figured I would post her email here to see if anyone had any thoughts or advice. If so, please either reply to this post, or email her at margaretdelacy@comcast.net.
Thanks so much everyone!
Mark
I am writing to request your help in locating an expert to comment on our state report cards.
I am the chair of the government relations committee of our state gifted organization--the Oregon Association for Talented and Gifted--and I have just been informed that our state Senate Education Committee is considering a hearing on the new State Report Card. This is a reporting system dreamed up by a state committee that is separate from the federal AYP reports although it is tied to the same state assessment tests.
The State Report Card rewards schools for student growth up to our (low) state benchmarks. Once a student has met benchmarks it adds a few additional points for moving them from "meets" to "exceeds" but there is no reward for student growth beyond exceeds. About one-third of our students exceed. In addition, the state gives an extra 133 points for every student who exceeds and is in one of five "historically underachieving groups": black, hispanic, low-income, ELL and Special Education. If a student falls in more than one of these groups, s/he is counted again for every group. Students who are white, bi-racial and asian/pacific islander are only counted once and do not receive the extra 133 points unless they fall into one of the other groups (e.g. low income).
We were told that it has to work this way because it is tied to the state assessments and the state assessments have to be at grade level because of the rules under No Child Left Behind.
I am concerned that this mixture of status-based reporting with a minimal amount of progress-based reporting creates many unintended consequences. In addition, it provides no incentive for schools to foster further learning among students who exceed and may encourage them to
scatter "exceeding" students as evenly as possible across classrooms.
However, when legislators asked whether I could point to a state with a better system, I was at a loss. This issue seems to fall between three different research communities. If I needed to find an expert in gifted education I would at least know where to start, but this question also involves research on growth-based assessment systems and on NCLB and its unintended effects.
I am looking for someone to encourage our legislature to move towards a system that will reward schools for promoting student growth across the spectrum, from low to high, and not one that stops at low and then rewards schools for student's status after that.
If you can help me identify someone even at one or two removes (that is, someone who knows someone.....) I would be very grateful.
