420

Years ago I had a student in class who liked to quote himself. He'd say something like, "Well, if I could quote myself..." and then go on to quote himself in defense of his argument. His method was brilliantly absurd, comedic genius. It was impossible to argue with his airtight misguided logic.

In the spirit of that guy, I'd like to quote myself, 

"Over the last several years an increasingly vocal contingent of administrators, teachers, parents, and students have criticized our system of standardized testing. In the state of Ohio, this activism has forced the hand of politicians. Recently they decided to eliminate PARCC, and cut one of the testing windows. It is not enough. The assessments created by AIR are not any better. Three hours per test is still inappropriate. We are testing beyond the federal minimum of hours and content areas. While we squander instruction time for the sake of assessments, the tests will continue to measure what they measure best, which is the relative economic well being of the students taking them."

I spoke these words publicly to the school board in my district this past fall in the interest of maintaining a critical dialogue regarding education and assessment. Should I be punished for this critique of standardized tests, or the many others I have made? According to an interpretation of Substitute House Bill 420, I might be.

As many of you already know, the bill prohibits teachers from "suggesting" that students opt-out of state assessments. Does the above critique make that suggestion? Well, I don't know, but if someone had it in for me, it might. If I were found in violation of the law because of my interest in collaborative intellectual dialogue on the subject of testing, then I could be charged with a minor misdemeanor, have my teaching license revoked, and lose my teaching job.

And I thought quoting oneself was absurd.

This provision is clearly an attempt to muzzle educators, is likely a violation of our first amendment rights, and is completely, professionally unacceptable.

This is not a paranoid scene from a dystopian educational future. It is happening.

I have contacted ALL members of the House Education Committee, and I encourage you to do the same. Below, you'll find the letter I sent. Copy and paste, revise it to your liking, then send it.

Representative So and So,

I recently sent an endorsement of HB 420 to your email. Unfortunately, I do not find the substitute bill in the same spirit. To be fair, even the original was only minimally appealing in its very limited scope and short term focus on limiting the impact from opt outs on last year's tests. In Elyria, where I teach and send my child to school, the refusals were statistically from higher performing students, and the original bill did nothing to address the effect this has on overall scores.

As always, I feel the level of Ohio's testing, well beyond federal minimums, combined with unnecessary high stakes (3rd grade guarantee, graduation requirement, teacher evaluation, etc.) to be the real issue.

The substitute bill's inclusion of language forbidding the "suggestion of opt outs" by teachers and other employees makes this legislation unacceptable and likely unconstitutional. I have never been an outspoken advocate of refusing tests. However, I do believe it is a parent's right. As a parent and teacher, if I opt my son out of assessments, am I suggesting opt outs? Furthermore, if I engage in a public dialogue that is critical of the assessment system, as I have done, am I suggesting opt outs? The bill does nothing to clarify, and so leaves educators open to unwarranted attack. These are only two scenarios that illustrate the point.

The language in question removes the most informed stakeholders in educational policy, teachers, from the discussion. Education is a collaborative endeavor when it functions best. Collaboration has already been threatened through high stakes assessment, pitting public schools against charter schools and other public schools, an evaluation system that pits teacher against teacher, school versus school. A system that thrives on cooperation and collaboration suffers in this environment. The marked decline in Ohio's national education ranking is proof of that. Substitute HB 420's systematic muzzling of teachers will only make matters worse.

I have not even begun to reference the constitutionality of the measure, or the hostility evident in the subsequent punishments if one is found in violation of the statute. I know that much of this came out in testimony.

I am not normally an advocate of completely dismissing work or using cliches that involve babies and bathwater, but in this case I encourage you to throw the baby out with the bathwater. House Bill 420 is lost and unnecessary. Dismiss it, and move on. Much is wrong with Ohio's education system. 420 is not the answer to any of it.

As always, thanks for your time, consideration, and work for your constituents.

Matt Jablonski