The Revision of Our State Assessment of Poverty.

The state of Ohio has continued to release more information regarding this year's revised standardized tests. Each communication arrives in my in-box and I become sick with excitement. I am the proverbial kid on Christmas Day, running from room to room in order to share the news with my colleagues.

"Look, look! The tests will be given over 10 to 15 days instead of four months!"

"Did you hear? Students may have an option of taking an assessment in two, hour and a half sessions, or all at once for three hours!"

"Gee, the state really listened to our concerns."

"They've just released 15 sample questions! Check it out!"

And so on, and so forth. I've tried to move into this process with optimism, but what I keep coming back to is the futility of the process.

Ohio is now admitting that the tests provide no data to inform instruction, but rather are being used to rate schools so that parents can be informed, and rate teachers to pinpoint the ineffective. The problem is that standardized tests were not designed for these purposes, and do nothing to accurately portray how much has been learned.

Furthermore, if the goal is to help struggling schools or to narrow the achievement gap, as was laid out to start this process, then a dozen years of assessments have failed to accomplish that goal. 

The schools that tend to score poorly are those whose populations have high rates of poverty. So, instead of providing social, academic, medical, or mental health services that might remediate the economic issues and actually create an environment more conducive to learning, we're going to double down on assessments, blame teachers, label impoverished schools as failures, then privatize.

Not long ago I spoke to a former teacher who said that she didn't believe that poverty was something that can impact academic success. My first thought was that she has never truly been hungry, experienced unemployment, transient or inadequate housing, a lack of heat or medical care...any of the above and tried to learn.

I would have assumed she'd at least have remembered Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. 

That aside, perhaps the school rankings based on state assessments might have been made available, and with a rudimentary knowledge of wealthy vs not wealthy communities a person could see a fairly clear correlation between income levels and test scores.

Don't get me wrong, I believe that students from a low socioeconomic background can learn, and be successful in school. Students from low income families are now in the majority in U.S. public schools. I am a public school teacher in an urban district. I would be a walking contradiction if I believed otherwise.

However, the success of the low income student comes with an extraordinary effort that often involves not only the public schools, but a combined effort of public and private nonprofit agencies providing remediation services to satisfy the primary needs of the student. Only with a freedom from hunger, an assurance of housing, security, and a sense of stability can a student move forward with any sort of focus on academics.

No, I do not think that poverty prohibits learning, but I believe it is terribly foolish to think that it is a non-issue. Our policy makers would be well served to consider this argument.

Yeah, the tests are shorter this time around. Last year's Ohio assessments were like getting punched in the throat. Twice. This year we're only getting punched in the throat once. And guess what, they will still only measure your child's economic status, with little variation, and they will do absolutely nothing to better the education of Ohio's kids, rich or poor. Millions of dollars will be spent on our revised testing system, that could be used in far more effective ways.