Thanks Pat Bruns.

I am very grateful to Pat Bruns, state school board member and former teacher, for twice responding to my concerns regarding high school graduation. This is a fine example of democracy in action, an elected official in thoughtful discussion with a citizen. She is an advocate for teachers, students, and public schools in general. In the first passage below, she explains the board's resolution regarding test scores. The second piece is my response to this latest correspondence. Finally, I have included the resolution as provided by Board Member Bruns (unfortunately it didn't copy and paste well). I've also added her initial correspondence with me at the bottom, which might help to clarify her opinions on the matter.

Bruns' email:

Mr. Jablonski,

I wanted to follow-up with the resolution that the State Board passed at the June 14 meeting regarding testing. Please contact me with further questions/concerns.

Some Background: The State Board of Education approved the performance levels for Ohio’s State Tests in mathematics and English language arts during the January 2016 board meeting. This was done with the expectation that Ohio Department of Education staff members would work with our vendor, American Institutes for Research (AIR), to review the early results from the spring test administration in June 2016 to determine if any changes may be recommended to the performance levels.

As you may recall, the performance levels provided were based on recommendations made by panels of educators after reviewing several items, including: actual test items, field test data from other AIRCore states and past performance on assessments such as NAEP, PARCC, Smarter Balanced and Ohio Achievement Assessments.

AIR currently is working to score and analyze the results of Ohio’s spring tests. Based on early results from the spring test administration, AIR is able to predict the number of Ohio students who will reach each performance level.

Thanks so much for your advocacy for your students.

Respectfully,

Pat Bruns

My response:

Board Member Bruns,

Thank you for the follow up email. I really appreciated your first reply, and am grateful for your work on the Ohio School Board. Your background as a public school teacher is invaluable in weighing in on the board's decisions. Thank you for your work on a school board that seems hostile to public schools and public school students and teachers, though I'm sure they would argue to the contrary.

I was in attendance for a portion of the school board meeting on the 14th and appreciated your question regarding business partnerships to the school leaders who gave the presentation. I also appreciated Board Member Oakar's concerns about students being able to overcome environmental issues, and A.J. Wagner's realistic defense of my initial argument regarding graduation rates. Unfortunately, the majority of the board seems to be operating on an educational philosophy regarding assessment that is decades old, and has been repeatedly disproven. This philosophy, that increasingly difficult (to pass) assessments increase student achievement, does not justify the negative impact high stakes tests have on students.

I appreciate the degree of analysis that goes into setting the cut scores. I understand that ODE and AIR reps, along with a handful of teachers, take part in analysis of test items, NAEP, and data from other states, but what we're failing to recognize is the continuing direct correlation between demographics and test scores. Your colleagues have seemed willing to address the issue when it comes to charter school ratings, but not when it comes to poor public school kids at risk for not graduating. 

Incidentally, if the analysis of Washington's NAEP and other scores (the state we used as a model) weighed in on these decisions, we should have looked at their process for setting scores. They purposefully chose proficient percentages comparable to their previous testing system, instead of 30% lower like we have done. If 80% were proficient on the previous assessment, then 80% were proficient on the new one. They were also careful regarding tying high stakes decisions, like graduation, to brand new assessments. We may have been better served to take this measured approach, rather than leaping blindly into an unproven system, twice.

After all, in the first year of the OGT, the tests didn't count for graduation. In the first year of the 3rd grade guarantee, the assessment used was the OAA, not PARCC or AIR's PARCC-like assessments. Also, the way I understand it, cut scores were lowered for an alternative assessment for 3rd graders. All I've been arguing for is a more humane system for high school students.

Don't get me wrong, I am working to figure out the best methods to educate in order to assure success on the new assessments. We are all working to figure out interventions to increase scores upon retakes of tests. We are public school teachers, as you were. We adapt and overcome for the sake of our students. I'm just not sure that this process is increasing achievement or making students "career and college ready" as much as it is increasing their capabilities as test takers.

All in all, I'm happy that my message is out there regarding the terribly low proficient rates and the danger they present regarding graduation. If I am wrong, as so many in attendance at the meeting seem to believe, then I will be happy because my students will be graduating without issue. If I am right, then at least we have begun the discussion.

Thanks again for your time and work on behalf of Ohio's students.

Sincerely,

Matthew T. Jablonski

The resolution:

Section 3301.0712 of the Revised Code requires a system of college and work ready tests, and Section 3301.0710 requires statewide achievement assessments at the end of grades three through eight. On each of those tests, the State Board is responsible for determining and designating five ranges of scores that demonstrate levels of achievement.  In 2015/2016 Ohio will administer new assessments in the subject areas of mathematics and English/Language Arts.  The Board previously adopted performance levels on the assessments in January 2016.  The Ohio Department of Education and its technical advisory panel on testing have now reviewed preliminary results from spring testing.  Based upon those preliminary results, the Department recommends adjusting the performance level on two of the tests, Geometry and Integrated Mathematics II.  The other performance levels will remain as set in January 2016.  

 

RESOLUTION TO ADJUST PERFORMANCE LEVELS FOR GEOMETRY AND INTEGRATED MATHEMATICS II

 

The Achievement Committee RECOMMENDS that the State Board of Education ADOPT the following Resolution:

 

Section 3301.0712 requires a system of college and work ready tests, which includes end-of-course tests in specified subjects and requires the state board to determine and designate at least five ranges of scores that demonstrate levels of achievements on these tests;

 

The State Board of Education in January 2016 previously set performance levels for the 2015-2016 school year on all tests:  

 

The Department has now had the opportunity to review the 2016 spring Ohio testing data, and

recommends adjusting the performance levels for two of the tests, Geometry and Integrated Math II; 

 

The Achievement Committee approved the adjustment of the performance levels on these two tests at its meeting in June 2016; and 

 

Emergency consideration of this resolution has been approved by Board leadership because setting these performance levels immediately is necessary to prevent delaying the 2015/2016 report card:  Therefore, Be It

 

RESOLVED, That the State Board of Education hereby adopts adjusted performance levels for 2015/2016 for the tests in Geometry and Integrated Mathematics II, as set forth below:  

 

Exam	Limited	Basic	Proficient	Accelerated	Advanced	Proficient or Above Total
	%  Act.	% Raw Pts.	%  Act.	% Raw Pts.	%  Act.	% Raw Pts.	%  Act.	%  Raw Pts.	%  Act.	%  Act.
Geometry	22	22	28	35	28	50	17	70	5	50
Math 2	39	26	26	39	18	54	13	72	4	35

%Act. is the percent of students actually scoring in each performance level from the spring 2016 test administration based on early return data

%Raw Pts. is the percent of raw score points needed to achieve each performance level

If you're interested, this was the first piece of correspondence that I received from Pat Bruns on the issue of test scores and graduation rates prior to the state board meeting...

Mr. Jablonski,

I would agree that 2015-16 testing and the resulting Report Card is a disaster. We will actually be discussing the very issues you have raised about the 2015 test results, timeliness of the reporting, and discrepancies in several of the math tests as you have pointed out at our June 13-14 Board meeting.

 

As a retired educator, I believe that tests are merely a snapshot of a student's progress.  I am supportive of using the ACT/SAT, a nationally normed assessment. As much as possible, we should rely on local districts to determine appropriate assessments and benchmarks for their unique population.  Those closest to the work with students should be crafting instruction and assessments that honor the individual and shape strategies to help them progress.  Several key questions we should be asking might include:

Does the assessment measure the learning standards objectives and expectations for students at each level and academic area?

Are the assessments designed for ongoing classroom strategies or for the district strategic planning?

Are the assessments transparent, timely and easily understood by the intended audience?

Is the measurement clearly tied to a specific learning objective?

I will be sure to remind my colleagues of your concerns as we continue to debate the purpose of and most appropriate assessments that will help students thrive and succeed.

Thanks for advocating so passionately for your students!  Contact or call me anytime before Monday to further discuss other ways I can forward your ideas.

In the meantime, enjoy a well-deserved "break in the action"!

Respectfully,

Pat

Pat Bruns

State Board of Education member 

District 4