About a month ago, I emailed every legislator in the state of Ohio regarding my concerns with the excessive and inappropriate use of standardized testing. I have since received responses from many well-intentioned (and some uninformed) individuals. Today I got a letter from Ohio Senate President Keith Faber thanking me for my correspondence. He also included a list of the items addressed by Senate Bill 3 and asked for my thoughts and suggestions. Below is my response. While I am an advocate of the elimination of standardized tests, I took a more measured approach with Senator Faber. I believe some of these solutions are quite reasonable. What do you think?
Thank you for the response to my letter regarding excessive standardized testing, and the opportunity to comment on Senate Bill 3. I can see that you have attempted to respond to the recommendations of Dr. Ross, and I would assume that this would be a starting point from which to begin eliminating further tests. With that said, I've seen these same issues proposed of late in other Republican led states which makes me suspect the legislation was not penned in state, but was think tanked elsewhere. Despite these suspicions, I'll comment because I'd like to believe that you're interested in doing what's right for Ohio's children.
I'd first like to say that as a high school history teacher, I have no knowledge of health care contracting or the competitive bidding process, so I am unable to comment on these components of the bill.
Regarding the first point on eliminating the Fall 3rd grade reading test: on the surface this means less testing. However, you are creating a situation where 3rd graders now have one fewer times to meet the reading guarantee. I believe this component could be made successful with the complete abolition of the third grade reading guarantee. We borrowed this idea from Florida. It didn't work there. Very few children are held back as a result of the guarantee. Many are forced into summer school, most are promoted, likely as a result of the ODE lowering expectations on the summer assessment. In short, if you must test in 3rd grade, get rid of the high stakes guarantee.
Speaking of high stakes, as long as you tie standardized tests to student promotion or graduation, teacher evaluation, administrator evaluation, and school and district grades, the use of percentages to limit testing and practice will be ineffective (item 3 on your list). I spoke at an education forum in my community this week in which I indicated that the high stakes nature of testing forces the hand of teachers and other stakeholders to focus solely on the test. We have created this culture of assessment which promotes inauthentic learning experiences. For example, on the OGT my students are asked to write 2 point, two sentence, short answer, and 4 point, single paragraph, extended response questions. To assure success, the essays on class tests are modeled after these. It works. However, the process is counterproductive if you consider the type of writing students are required to complete at the college level. Because graduation, teacher evaluation and school rating are based on these tests the system cannot change regardless of a state law that limits test practice to 1% of time. It is the incorrect answer. A more effective solution would be to eliminate the high stakes components. Because of the demand for accountability in some circles this is unlikely. I am nothing if not a realist. If abolishing high stakes elements makes you uncomfortable, then make the high stakes component more manageable for students, teachers and districts.
I like the item listed as #2 on your list, eliminating state mandated diagnostics in first through third grade. I would advocate taking it a step further by eliminating the Kindergarten Readiness Assessment, and all other assessments (OAA and PARCC included) at that level. Teachers don't use the results, the data is irrelevant by the time they receive it, and not very valid in the first place. Speak to some Elementary School teachers. Ask them what they need. Not one will answer "more assessments". If you have to give an elementary assessment, limit it to math and language, administer in the 4th grade, then leave them alone to teach and learn. Perhaps you could revisit those students with a few assessments in middle school, maybe add science and social studies, administer the tests at the end of 7th grade, then leave them alone. Finally, if we must maintain a graduation test it should be no more intrusive than the OGT, which I believe is too intrusive. The new system, PBAs and EOYs, PARCC and AIR, is an abomination.
As for your "rewards" for high performing schools, they appear very dangerous. Exempting these districts from class size requirements, the use of qualified, credentialed teachers, the use of mentors and the rest seems like the tip of the iceberg in the complete deregulation of public schools. I cannot believe that any public school teacher or administrator worth their degrees would advocate such a system. It sets up a scenario in which unlicensed members of the community could be hired to teach standing room only classes if the circumstances require it, such as massive state cuts to affluent districts (much like the governor's current budget proposal).
Senator Faber, I'm afraid that I don't agree with much in your legislation. With that said, this should be dialogue or a "constructive conversation," as you indicated in your letter. I am speaking as an advocate for students and teachers, for public schools. I appreciate you taking the time to consider my point of view, and look forward to a response.
Thank you.
Yours in education,
Matthew T. Jablonski
Elyria High School Social Studies Teacher
Matt, this is awesome. Thank you for being such a thoughtful advocate for our profession and our children. I hope Senator Faber learns something as well.
ReplyDelete