Friends:

?

I am very happy to tell you that the House Education Committee has just scheduled a public hearing on SB 934 A.? This bill, commissioned by OATAG has a somewhat misleading title:

?

This bill says that districts must permit anyone who knows a student who is enrolled in public school to refer them for a TAG assessment.? It also requires districts to accept referrals all year and post their referral process on their website.

?

Finally, it says that districts must screen referred children for TAG.

?

The actual TAG screening process will not be affected by this bill. It was already set out in our existing TAG administrative rules.

?

The “A” amendment removed a requirement for districts to assess students throughout the year because the OEA expressed concern that parents might refer their children over and over.?

?

Because most Oregon districts already accept referrals from teachers and parents, self-referrals from students, and referrals from others with relevant knowledge (such as foster parents), that this bill should not make a big difference to current practices.? It clarifies an issue that was not addressed in the existing laws and rules.?

?

It was triggered when one district suddenly decided that all referrals must be submitted by the students’ teacher(s). ?

?

Both the number and percentage of Oregon students identified for TAG has been falling since the turn of the century.? There is a significant body of research showing that opening referrals increases equity.? Making the process more transparent will contribute to that goal and may also increase the number of identified TAG students.?

?

You can find all the materials associated with this bill here including a link to submit testimony. ?The public hearing was only just announced today (Friday) and it will take place at 3:00 on MONDAY, so if you haven’t already done so, you have only a couple of days to comment.

?

This page has a collection of relevant information about this bill.? It already links to the testimony that was submitted for the Senate version:

?

?

You can learn more about the House Education Committee at the link below.?

?

Rep. Courtney Neron chairs that committee.

?

?

?

Margaret

?

?

?

Friends:

?

The National Association for Gifted Children now has a blog on its website.? The most recent article is on AI in curriculum and professional development.

?

You can find the most recent blog post here:

?

and all blog posts going back to 2023 here:

?

?

Margaret

Forwarding from Learning Strategies

?

?

?

Friends:

?

Don’t forget to register for the parent social April 12^th.

?

?

?

?

?

Friends:

?

This is a follow up on our status this session:

?

OATAG’s bills

The Governor’s education “accountability” bills

State budget hearings

?

?

THREE TAG BILLS: TWO STILL ALIVE

?

SB 934 allows anyone who knows a student to refer them for TAG assessment.

The Oregon Education Association (OEA) expressed concerns that parents might repeatedly refer their children

for fresh assessments if dissatisfied with the results. While we believe this scenario is unlikely, we agreed

to an amendment removing the last eight words of the bill. Our administrative rules will still require Districts to screen students,

and parents retain the right to appeal identification decisions.

?

SB 933 is a complex bill designed to provide more coherent information about TAG and better achievement data

for all students. It requires the Oregon Department of Education to create a report card that provides information

on TAG programs. It also seeks to restore reports on student learning gains, which it discontinued during COVID.

Previous reports were difficult to interpret and, unfortunately, incorporated the assumption that high-achieving

students make smaller gains. While the Department has promised an improved reporting system, we have yet to see a draft.

?

The Coalition of Oregon School Administrators (COSA) and the Oregon School Board Association (OSBA)

opposed this bill, arguing that the reporting requirements are too burdensome. Senator Taylor’s office and

OATAG worked on amendments to streamline the reporting while maintaining the bill’s integrity.

?

On March 5, both bills passed the Senate Education Committee.

?SB 933 was referred to the Joint Ways and Means Committee;

SB 934 passed the Senate Chamber on a vote of 27 to 1 and is still waiting for its public hearing

in the House Education Committee.

Representative Courtney Neron, the chair of that committee, sets the hearing schedule.

?

House Bill 3420 would have been a game-changer for gifted education in Oregon

but Representative Neron did not schedule a hearing in theHouse Education Committee

by the deadline needed to keep bills alive. We are looking for other ways to find funding.

?

?

THE GOVERNOR’S BILLS

?

Governor Kotek sponsored two bills on “accountability” for school districts.?

?

They are HB 2009 and SB 141.? The bills were filed as “placeholders” and were subsequently

gutted and stuffed with new language.? As of this week, the relevant language is in the “dash 2”

amendments.? As they seem to be identical, here is a link to the House version:

?

?

I expect that both these bills will pass their respective committees and one of them will

then be considered by the Education Subcommittee of the Joint Ways and Means Committee

as there is a fiscal impact statement attached.

?

Although we strongly support increasing accountability, these bills are flawed.?

?

Both versions of the Governor’s bills rely on the “focal groups”, called out in the Student Success

Act which omits TAG students, leaving districts unaccountable for ensuring that all students are learning. ?

?

Here is the list of “groups” that are included in the bill

?

From Senate Bill 141 -2 (the version with the current amendment)

?

“(11) ‘Student group’ means the following student groups:

?

“(a) Economically disadvantaged students, as determined based on

rules adopted by the State Board of Education;

“(b) Students from racial or ethnic groups that have historically

experienced academic disparities, as determined under rules adopted

by the State Board of Education;

“(c) Students with disabilities;

“(d) Students who are English language learners;

“(e) Students who are foster children, as defined in ORS 30.297;

“(f) Students who are homeless, as determined under rules adopted

by the State Board of Education; and

“(g) Any other student groups that have historically experienced

academic disparities, as determined by the State Board of Education

by rule.

?

Note that the State Board of Education has the power to add additional groups to this list.

We are asking them to do just that, and to rescind their declaration that

“Lack of access to programs for academically gifted and high-achieving students does not constitute facing academic disparities.”

?

TAG students do experience academic disparities.? Data from the Oregon Department of Education proves

that access to advanced classes depends entirely on where the student lives.?

Overall, rural districts are less likely to provide services, but some rural districts provide a high level

of instruction for –all—their students while some larger districts have completely abandoned their responsibilities.?

?

The disparities don’t end with geographical handicaps.

?Oregon students lack access to advanced opportunities whether or not they are members of a group

that is specifically listed in the Student Success Act.? As noted in a report from the Department of Education to the legislature:

?

“…equitable access to accelerated learning programs begins … in kindergarten. …

The successful implementation of these early education initiatives has been hampered

by a lack of adequate funding. It is crucial to secure sustainable funding sources to ensure

equitable access to accelerated learning opportunities for all students.”?

?

Often access to advanced classes varies among schools within a district and even within each school.

Unfortunately, the lack of data on these students makes it harder to determine which districts and schools are doing a good job.

?

We also have other concerns about the bill.

?

It creates a series of “尘别迟谤颈肠蝉” of which the most significant is the percentage of eighth grade studentsthat are “proficient” in math.?

Eighth grade is a moment when some students are in algebra and others aren’t, so it is a poor choice of grade level.

Moreover by combining students at all ability levels into a single number, this “metric” makes it impossible to identify

problems or see which groups are making good progress.

Finally, a proficiency score is a single point-in-time measure that fails to show what students have learned during the year.

It does not provide districts with actionable insights into areas that need improvement.

Student growth by ability level is a much more meaningful measure. Growth must be reported by ability level because

high-performing students tend to show lower gains—without this distinction, results can be misinterpreted.

Breaking down progress first by ability level and then by demographic groups would pinpoint where problems

truly lie and suggest targeted solutions.? This is the approach required by SB 933 which is currently waiting in the Ways

and Means committee.

?

Finally, the bill calls for an unnamed “entity” commissioned by the Oregon Department of Education to review ALL the Division 22 standards.

These standards include the three rules for TAG students: identification, communication, and services.?

This process is likely to be held behind closed doors without any public engagement process.

We do not need this review.? These standards have already been combed through by a number of groups in the legislature.

In the past, calls to reconsider the Division 22 Standards have served as a cover for efforts to abolish our TAG mandate.

What we really need is an honest effort by the Oregon Department of Education to ensure that districts actually implement these

standards.

The Governor is the head of that Department and she could do this tomorrow.

?

?

STATE BUDGET HEARINGS

?

The Joint Ways and Means Committee is continuing statewide hearings on the education budget this month:

please plan to attend and address the need for TAG funding.?

You are more likely to have an opportunity to speak if you come from a smaller community.

Letters and calls to your representatives in the legislature are also very helpful.

?

Here are the remaining meetings:

?

Warm Springs | Friday, April 4 (5:00pm – 7:00pm)

Old Warm Springs Elementary School

1112 Wasco Street, Warm Springs, OR 97761

Members of the public can register to testify here

?

La Grande | Friday, April 11 (5:00pm – 7:00pm)

Eastern Oregon University, Hoke Union Building #339

1 University Boulevard, La Grande, OR 97850

Members of the public can register to testify here

?

Salem, Statewide Virtual Testimony Prioritized | Wednesday, April 16 (5:00pm – 7:00pm)

Oregon State Capitol Building, Hearing Room F

900 Court St NE, Salem, OR 97301

Members of the public can register to testify here

?

Klamath Falls | Friday, April 25 (5:00pm – 7:00pm)

Klamath Community College, Building 4 Commons

7390 South 6th Street, Klamath Falls, OR 97603

Members of the public can register to testify here

?

?

HOW TO PARTICIPATE:

?

Write/call your legislators

Write/call the office of any legislators on a relevant committee

Participate in public hearings with written or verbal testimony

You can find any legislator just by searching their name

?

Visit our advocacy page to learn more about how you can make a difference:

?

The best way to find out what is going on in the legislature is to check out the committee pages.? You can find the committees’ sites here:

?

Each committee section includes the members of the committee, agendas, staff, how to testify, and a list of the “assigned

measures” (bills) that have been sent to the committee.? If you are interested in the status of a particular bill,

click on the bill number.? Be sure to check for the “measure history” and any amendments.

?

I have additional advocacy tips including scripts you can adapt for calling/writing your representatives here:

?

Thanks for reading!

?

Margaret

?

?

Thank you for the correction Judy!? It is SB 934. I failed to edit my own message. ?As the amendment was adopted, it is now SB 934 A.

?

And please, please do write Rep. Neron and ask her to schedule a hearing for HB 3420.? It would revolutionize TAG services in Oregon.

?

Margaret

?

?

?

Friends:

?

I am very pleased to announce that SB 944, which permits anyone to refer a student for TAG screening, passed the Senate Chamber this morning.? It does not have any fiscal impact statement so it will be sent next to the House Education Committee.? The chair of that committee is Courtney Neron.

?

Senate Bill 943, which collects and reports student data which also passed the Senate Education committee is going to the Education Subcommittee of the Joint Ways and Means Committee instead of the Senate Chamber because it had a large (I think excessive) fiscal impact statement.

?

Senator Kathleen Taylor, the chief sponsor of the bill, representing southeast Portland, the City of Milwaukie, and Oak Grove, gave a heartfelt introduction and defense of the bill on the Senate floor.?

?

Senator Chris Gorsek, who represents Gresham, Fairview, Troutdale and Wood Village also spoke in favor.?

?

Senator Janeen Sollman, who represents Forest Grove, Cornelius, Hillsboro, and Rock Creek, was the lone vote against.

You can see the testimony and vote here:

?

?

This bill would not have been scheduled or passed without support from Senator Lew Frederick, the Chair of the Senate Education Committee.

?

Meanwhile, HB 3420 (1% for TAG) is still waiting for its first hearing in the House Education Committee.

?

This would be an excellent time to contact Representative Neron and ask her to schedule both SB 944 AND HB 3420.

It is urgent that she schedule HB 3420 or it will automatically die. She represents Wilsonville, including the Charbonneau Distric???t in Clackamas?County;?King?City,?Sherwood, and?Tigard/Bull Mountain in Washington County;???Parrett Mountain?in Yamhill County.

?

You CAN make the difference.

?

Please thank Senators Taylor, Gorsek, and Lew Frederick for supporting SB 944 and SB 943.?

?

It’s nice to have good news to share!

?

Margaret

Friends:

?

I did not expect to be writing this to you today.

?

This week, two apparently inoffensive bills: HB 2009 and SB 141 were amended to strip out all the language in the existing bills and substitute amendments with language provided by the Governor.?

?

This is a bad way to develop legislation.? Amendments don’t appear in the normal ways to scan bills or review committee agendas—they don’t exist until just before they are posted. You can be sure that the Governor did consult with lobbyists from some well-funded interest groups before these amendments were posted, but they represent end runs around the rest of us.

?

Supposedly, both bills are intended to improve “accountability” by school districts.? The Governor thinks this will improve the appalling achievement results posted by both the state and the NAEP earlier this year.? It will not. And it perpetuates the neglect of our TAG students.

?

The bills say that the state must report “尘别迟谤颈肠蝉” for students in “disaggregated groups.”? The list of “disaggregated groups” is taken straight from the Student Success Act (SSA) which provided funding for student groups experiencing “academic disparities”.? Despite repeated recommendations from the task force that originated it, the SSA did not include gifted and/or high-achieving students in the list, but it did say that the State Board could designate other groups?? When we asked that TAG students be included, staff then at the Department instead prodded the State School Board to declare that:?

?

“Lack of access to programs for academically gifted and high-achieving students does not constitute facing academic disparities”

?

This misguided declaration ensured that none of the huge chunk of new funding in the SSA would go to any group serving gifted OR high achieving students as such.?

?

Unfortunately, not only has this objectionable language survived, the list of “groups” from the SSA is copied in other state reports and studies, with the effect that TAG students are routinely left out.? OATAG and TAG families are also systematically passed over when the Department commissions “public engagement” with “stakeholder groups” concerning various initiatives and proposed new rules. They are ignored in state reports including the report of the Quality Education Commission.

?

This same list is now reproduced in the list of groups that the Governor thinks should be represented by “disaggregated” reports on student achievement.

?

The bill also just tweaks the “尘别迟谤颈肠蝉” that will be used for district accountability by adding “eighth grade math proficiency.”? This set of measurements will not provide meaningful information about student learning.? For the most part, it ratifies the undermining of state accountability systems that followed the Every Student Succeeds Act.

?

We need student gains, disaggregated first by ability, to know whether high-achieving students from marginalized backgrounds are making appropriate progress. This focus on a single measure of “proficiency” conceals the progress of very low-achieving students. Moreover, research has shown that the highest-achieving students make the lowest learning gains. Because they are already far above grade level, even when they spend years learning nothing new, they are still “proficient.” Previous “growth” reports were incomprehensible and incorporated the expectation that high achieving students would make lower learning gains.

?

Student progress reports should be produced with public involvement, should produce actionable information, and should be in a form that the public can easily understand.?

?

SB 933, which has passed the Senate Education Committee and is waiting for a hearing in the Senate Chamber, is a much better alternative.? The Department of Education has attached an excessive “fiscal impact” (cost) to the bill, which means it would next be sent to the Joint Ways and Means Committee.

?

SB 141-1 and HB 2009-1 also require appointment of an unknown “entity” to review the Division 22 standards.? In the past, similar bills have enabled covert efforts to abolish the 3 rules that enact our TAG mandate —identification, communication, and services.

?

Please CALL or EMAIL our legislators and ask them to reconsider the amendments to SB 141 and HB 2009 and support SB 933 instead.? It’s fine to leave a voice message.? If you are shy, you can even call after hours!? IF you are a constituent, identify yourself as such and provide your address, school district, or town/city.?? You do not need to be a constituent to communicate with our legislators.? Other people/groups contact them all the time.? But it will give your comments extra weight.?

You can learn more about speaking up in Salem on the “Advocacy” page of the OATAG website.

?

Find out

?

The links below will take you to contact information for committees.

?

?

?

Many minds and many students will be lost without your help!

?

Margaret

?

Find out

?

The links below will take you to contact information for legislators:

?

?

?

Senate members and leaders:

?

House members and leaders:

Education Committees for 2025

?

?

House committee on Education

?

Joint Subcommittee on Ways and Means: Education subcommittee

?Joint Committe on Ways and Means

?

Friends:

?

Mark your calendars and plan to turn up!? And ask them to support categorical TAG funding.? Our experience has been that increasing state school funding alone does not necessarily result in increased TAG funding.

?

Just remember that the key to success really is just showing up and using your voice.

?

JOINT COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS

?

The Joint Committee on Ways and Means will tour the state for six public

hearings to hear directly from Oregonians regarding the 2025-2027 budget

?

SALEM, Ore. – Today, the co-chairs of the Joint Committee on Ways and Means announced the

dates and locations of the 2025 community budget hearings and are encouraging Oregonians to

sign up to testify about which projects and programs the state should prioritize this budget

cycle.

Members of the committee and legislative leadership will attend six public hearings across the

state over the next two months as the upcoming 2025-2027 biennial state budget begins to take

shape. Individuals interested in testifying before the committee should sign up in advance for

the hearing they plan to attend.

This year will be the first time since at least 2005 a community budget hearing has occurred on

tribal lands when the committee visits Warm Springs on April 4. The April 16 public hearing will

prioritize virtual testimony so everyone in the state has an opportunity to testify on their budget

priorities.?

In the days before the first community budget hearing on March 22, the co-chairs will release

their budget framework, which will outline the state's budgetary outlook and what resources

might be available to use.?

Legislators are constitutionally required to pass a balanced budget every two years.

?

• ASL and Spanish language interpretation will be available at the public hearing.
  Habrá interpretación de ASL y espa?ol en la audiencia pública.
  
  To access links to a livestream or recordings of legislative meetings:
  
  
  PLEASE NOTE
  
  ? Testimony may be limited to 2-3 minutes.
  
  ? Those attending this community hearing in person will be given preference to present public comment by pre-registering to testify.
  
  ? The public hearing scheduled on April 16th at the State Capitol in Salem will prioritize remote public testimony for those who wish to participate by video link or phone.
  
  ? Written comment may be submitted online up to 48 hours after the meeting start time.

?

The dates and locations of the community budget hearings are:

?

Gresham | Saturday, March 22 (10:00am – 12:00pm)

Mt. Hood Community College, College Theater

26000 S.E. Stark Street, Gresham, OR 97030

Members of the public can register to testify here

?

Astoria | Friday, March 28 (5:00pm – 7:00pm)

Liberty Theatre Astoria

1203 Commercial Street, Astoria, OR 97103

Members of the public can register to testify here

?

Warm Springs | Friday, April 4 (5:00pm – 7:00pm)

Old Warm Springs Elementary School

1112 Wasco Street, Warm Springs, OR 97761

Members of the public can register to testify here

?

La Grande | Friday, April 11 (5:00pm – 7:00pm)

Eastern Oregon University, Hoke Union Building #339

1 University Boulevard, La Grande, OR 97850

Members of the public can register to testify here

?

Salem, Statewide Virtual Testimony Prioritized | Wednesday, April 16 (5:00pm – 7:00pm)

Oregon State Capitol Building, Hearing Room F

900 Court St NE, Salem, OR 97301

Members of the public can register to testify here

?

Klamath Falls | Friday, April 25 (5:00pm – 7:00pm)

Klamath Community College, Building 4 Commons

7390 South 6th Street, Klamath Falls, OR 97603

Members of the public can register to testify here

?

# # #

?

?

Persistence of Vision is an film education program of the Hollywood Theatre designed for 10th, 11th and 12th grade girls of all identities including gender-nonconforming youth to explore our connection to film, both as an art form and as a means of interacting with the world. By creating a dedicated safe space for an often under-appreciated demographic, our aim is to engage in meaningful guided discussions on relevant themes explored in the film and how they transfer to the day-to-day.

PLEASE NOTE: This program is designed to spark conversation about important issues. Because of that, some of the films that will be screened will contain adult situations, profanity, drug/alcohol use, nudity, sexual situations, and violence.

COST:?Free – though participation is by application only.

?

Friends:

?

I’m pleased to report that both Senate Bill 933 and Senate Bill 934 cleared their first hurdle this morning!

?

Both bills were sponsored by Senator Kathleen Taylor, with significant support from her legislative aide, Alex Blosser, who worked diligently to guide them through the process. Senator Frederick acknowledged their efforts during the hearing.

?

SB 933: Progress and Challenges

?

Unfortunately, SB 933 received what I believe is an excessively large fiscal impact statement: .

This bill will now be sent to the Education Subcommittee of the Joint Ways and Means Committee, where it will need strong support to move forward. There is no way to appeal or revise a fiscal impact statement, so advocacy is crucial.

?

The next step is to ask the co-chairs of the Ways and Means Committee to schedule a public hearing for the bill.

?

Key Amendments and Votes

?

The committee adopted the “Dash 3” amendments, which were designed to remove difficult-to-obtain data requests, thereby reducing the time and cost of providing information.

?

• Voting in favor: Senator Frederick, Senator Gelser Blouin, and Senator Sollman
• Voting against: Senator Robinson (concerned about the scope of data collection, including racial data)
• Not present: Senator Weber
• ?

During the discussion, Senators Frederick and Gelser Blouin responded to Senator Robinson that Black and Brown students continue to face disadvantages in our public school system.

?

If racially disaggregated data did show these students are receiving TAG services at equitable rates and achieving similar learning gains, ?that would be great news. Current data shows disparities in both areas.

?

For reference, here is the original bill: . Due to its length and extensive amendments, I want to highlight the most critical section:

?

Key Provision – Section (2)(O), Page 3:
The Department must report annual achievement test score gains in mathematics and language arts for students who took the statewide summative assessments in both the previous and current school years. This data must be disaggregated by:

• Subject matter and grade
• Proficiency level
• Demographics (including gender identity, racial/ethnic identity, economic disadvantage, and eligibility for special education)
• ?

This provision would greatly enhance our ability to track student progress across Oregon. If you have any questions about this section or others, please reach out to me.

?

SB 934: Key Update

?

The committee also adopted the “Dash 1” amendment for SB 934, removing the requirement that districts must “provide screenings as needed throughout the school year.”

• This change was made in response to OEA’s opposition, which argued that parents might refer their children for screening over and over, and districts would then have to screen them multiple times a year.
• The TAG identification process and parents’ appeal rights remain unchanged. Administrative rules ensuring that identification teams are trained and follow clear criteria will not be affected.

Votes:

• In favor: Senator Frederick, Senator Gelser Blouin, Senator Richardson, and Senator Weber (who joined the committee later)
• Against: Senator Sollman

?

SB 934 now moves to the Senate Chamber, where every senator present must vote. If it passes, it will proceed to the House Education Committee, where the entire process will repeat.

?

The Road Ahead: HB 3420

The easiest part of the process is over—the hardest part is still ahead. We urgently need to request a public hearing for HB 3420, which would provide PERMANENT, CATEGORICAL funding for TAG programs and services.

?

HB 3420 Overview:

?

The most important committee at this stage is the House Education Committee, chaired by Representative Courtney Neron. Below is a list of key legislative committee members.

Thank you for your continued support!

?

Margaret

?

?

SB 934:

?

SECTION 1. ORS 343.407 is amended to read:

343.407. School districts shall identify talented and gifted [students] children enrolled in public

schools under rules adopted by the State Board of Education. The rules must require school districts

to:

(1) Allow any person who knows the child to recommend

that a child be screened for identification as a talented and gifted child;

(2) Provide a screening of a child recommended under subsection (1) of this section;

(3) Accept recommendations under subsection (1) of this section throughout the school year.

(4) Directly inform parents of the process to recommend that a child

be screened for identification as a talented and gifted child; and

(5) Provide information on the school district’s website about the process to recommend that a

child be screened for identification as a talented and gifted child.

?

?

?

?

House committee on Education

?

Joint Subcommittee on Ways and Means: Education subcommittee

?Joint Committe on Ways and Means

?

?

?

?

Friends:

This session we requested three bills: SB 933 and SB 934 which were sponsored in the Senate by Senator Kathleen Taylor and HB 3420, which was sponsored in the House by Representative Emily McIntire.

SB 934 states that anyone who knows a student—parents, teachers, or community members—can refer them for TAG assessment. While most districts already allow this, state law is unclear, and at least one district now requires teachers to submit the referrals. ?Research show conclusively that this barrier causes gifted students, particularly students from underrepresented backgrounds, to be overlooked. It’s not surprising that the more hoops a family has to jump through, the more intimidating the process becomes for them.?

?SB 934 would standardize best practices across the state and reduce unnecessary paperwork for teachers. After referral students would still be assessed for TAG services by a trained team.

Some teachers who were interviewed about referring students by the Oregon Department of Education remarked that that early assessment is inappropriate or even that all students will “level out” by third grade. In fact, early identification is important to prevent disengagement from school and to ensure that students in lower-income schools retain their initial competencies.

?I was astonished when the OEA objected to SB 934 , claiming that it would open the floodgates and a huge crowd of parents would rush to refer their children because, “every parent thinks their child is gifted” (a claim contradicted by research).?? Moreover, they said, those parents would then KEEP referring the same children for assessment over and over again during a single school year.

This scenario seems very unlikely to me.? I don’t know many parents who want to have their children tested over and over.? Moreover, if they are unhappy with the results of the initial assessment, they already have the right to appeal.

We have agreed to an amendment that removes 8 words from the end of section 3 which says districts must “accept recommendations throughout the school year and … provide screenings as needed throughout the school year.”?Last I heard, the ODE is planning withdraw its opposition.

SB 933 is a more challenging project because it is likely to have a significant fiscal impact statement.? If it passes the Senate Education Committee, it would go to the Joint Ways and Means Education Subcommittee and then the full Joint Ways and Means committee.? That’s a lot of legislators to explain a complicated bill to.? Constituent input would be very helpful, so if anyone wants to learn more, they are welcome to contact me.

SB 933 calls the state Department of Education to create a report card compiling TAG information AND for the Department to report student learning gains broken down by ability on the OSAS, instead of reporting just scores.? An achievement test score tells you (more or less) what a student has learned since the day they were born; an achievement test gain tells you what they have learned during one school year. If you want actionable information on ways to improve curriculum and instruction, you need data on gains. And it needs to be in a format that people can understand.

SB 933 has been opposed by COSA and the OSBA.? They assert that it places too big a burden on school districts because of all the extra reports.? In fact, the Department of Education already has most of the data—I am just asking them to compile it differently and/or report it differently.? Right now, I ask them for some of this data every year, and then I compile it by hand despite my own ineptitude.?

Although this bill is identical to a bill from the 2023 session that included a small fiscal impact statement (1 data clerk), this time, the Department of Education contacted Sen. Taylor’s office and said it would incur a very large fiscal impact.? After that, Sen. Taylor’s staff and I met with the staff at the Department to see if we could find out what was causing the problem.

Sen. Taylor’s staff and I have developed amendments that we hope will reduce the agitation at the Department without completely undermining the bill.? They have just been drafted and should be released within the next few days.

When the bill was originally drafted in 2022/3, the TAG page on the State Report Card contained a breakdown of identifications: Math, ELA, Intellectual, and “district option” (visual/performing arts, creativity and leadership).? That breakdown disappeared when the new TAG id rule passed and the Department told us it no longer has that information so we removed it from the bill.

We are reducing the request for FTE to TAG administrators and the TAG identification committee (taking out classroom teachers and reducing the reports on student achievement gains to the 25 largest districts (redactions would make many of the district level reports for small districts uninformative), and removed a requirement for parent survey data.

Districts will be required to provide data for the report card “where available.”

HB ?3420 will be a challenge.? However, if we never ask for the investment we really need, our chances of getting state funding remain at zero.

This bill would allocate 1% of the State School Fund—approximately $50 million per year—for TAG programs. This is a modest but crucial investment compared to other programs, such as English Language Learners ($244 million) and Special Education ($1.55 billion).? It would create a dramatic impact on the services provided to all our students.

Funding would be distributed as follows:

• 25% to the Oregon Department of Education for technical support and grants
• 25% to regional service districts to help small and rural schools
• 50% directly to districts, based on overall student enrollment (not the number of identified TAG students)

This funding model ensures that all districts, especially smaller ones with fewer resources, can provide meaningful TAG services. Currently, more than half of Oregon districts spend very little or nothing on TAG programs.

The legislature is happy to dish out hundreds of millions of dollars chasing chip factories and other pet projects but has allocated one dime to TAG services since the last remnant was cut in 2002 after a promising start. ?

It is possible that the shocking NAEP and state test results would make an impact, but all I have seen in media reports is that the results show that too many students are below proficient.? As long as people just look at “proficient/not proficient” the learning of students at both ends becomes invisible. ?If we can pass SB 933, the impact of the current service levels on students who exceed standards will become more evident

Testimony in favor of that bill would make a huge difference.?Legislators who support this bill have begged me to find others who will support it. ?Please plan to show up if/when it is heard (you can testify virtually and submit testimony online). Meanwhile, please contact the representatives on the House Education Committee and ask them to support a public hearing for this bill.? Here is a list.

Feel free to contact me if you have any questions.? You can find more information on our website at

Margaret

?

Margaret DeLacy, President

Oregon Association for Talented and Gifted

?

OATAG provides information at no cost to support Oregon students, educators and families. Your OATAG membership is essential for this to continue.

?

There's a TAG Advisory Council meeting coming up Thursday 6:30. The first hour is with PPS TAG staff, the second hour is for TAGAC members and guests. Co-chair Jenny will be posting about it soon here in this group, but you can also find information here:

?