I'm happy there is a discussion going on, even though Patrick O'Donnell gives more time to those who would label me an "Alarmist" for being concerned about plummeting graduation rates, or claim I am someone who would simply graduate students who have accomplished very little.
Allow me, in my own way, to address a few issues presented by my detractors in the article.
First, the issue of "raising standards." From the article, "State school board President Tom Gunlock said the state is making a conscious decision to raise standards so that schools only give diplomas to kids who are prepared for the workforce or college."
As a professional educator, I have no problem with raising standards. I raise standards incrementally in my classroom based upon my analysis of data that I collect from student work, responses, assessments, on a daily basis. The expectation or assignments are then differentiated for groups of, and individual students so that they can be challenged and not overwhelmed, progressing from where they are academically, intellectually, socially, etcetera.
With all due respect to the Board President, the state's "conscious decision" is not about raising standards in education. Their "conscious decision" is to use brand new assessments, provide teachers and students with little information on the tests themselves, very little data on student performance (far less than the OGT), set arbitrary cut scores to assure fewer students pass, fewer students graduate, and then assume this will result in student preparedness.
Board President Gunlock's philosophy is based on the assumption that standardized assessments will drive achievement. It is based on the Texas Education Miracle in which this very thing occurred more than ten years ago. The problem is, it didn't happen. That district was manipulating data (not unlike Gunlock's state cronies were doing for charters last year), manufacturing success where there was none. Furthermore, overall, in Texas, Ohio, and nationwide, student achievement has not increased as a result of our culture of testing. NAEP scores have plateaued, at best, gaps are not being closed, and educational inequity has only gotten worse.
Second, from the article...
It is too early to tell whether this represents a trend or just a one-time blip," said Damon Asbury, the association's director of legislative services. "It was a new test, so the problem could lie with the test or the student performance."
Hey Mr. Asbury, it was a new test last year as well, and since the state claims they are phasing out questions borrowed from other states next year, isn't that technically a new test also? And if this is "just a one-time blip" as you say, or more than that as I suggest, then how in the hell can we justify using these results as a graduation requirement?
Third, from of our conservative friend Chad Aldis of the Fordham Institute, which has been a major backer of college and career readiness standards across the country, said he believes standards, on the whole, are realistic. Students , he said, will have to bear down and schools will have to help kids catch up. If that means that students re-take classes and tests, so be it, he said.
Thanks for weighing in, Chad. So, as these students "bear down" as you say, disproportionate numbers of them from economically disadvantaged districts according to last year's numbers (this year's aren't available by district), who will teach those courses and what will they teach? Perhaps Chad is unaware that most districts are struggling for funding, cutting teachers, programs, and the very support staff that might enable our students to "catch up." Assuming teachers were available to teach remediation, or test-prep classes, what the hell would we teach? The state has released alarmingly little information about these tests, and a terrible lack of data on student performance on these new rigorous standards. So, no information, no data, but if those of us working in districts with high numbers of impoverished students would simply "bear down", then we will find success.
I guess Chad and his colleagues at the Fordham Institute would also argue that if we in public schools are unable to assure college and career readiness (read success on a standardized test), then those students should seek out a charter school, of which they are also "major backers." The very charters whose siphoning of funding from the public schools make it difficult to maintain the very programs to assure student success. Also, when charters were concerned about being rated low because of results on standardized tests, Mr. Aldis was opposed to using these measures for evaluation because they "correlate with demographics." This is exactly why they shouldn't be used as a graduation requirement. Again, thanks for weighing in on this matter, Chad, but you are a walking contradiction. It's OK to use these scores to prevent kids from graduating, but not when it comes to hindering the ratings of Fordham's charters. For what it's worth, if you'd like to visit one of Ohio's many urban high schools in order to instruct us on how to appropriately "bear down," I'm sure you would be welcome.
One more. This one from a Thomas Lasley of "Learn to Earn." "I'm not where A.J.'s at on this at all," said Lasley, who works with both suburban and city schools. "I don't know how students are going to secure a living wage at all without a marketable skill."
Mr. Lasley, kindly forward the research you're referencing that indicates that a student's performance on a standardized assessment is directly correlated to securing a living wage job. Also, please publish the list of living wage jobs that you allude to that currently exist in the state of Ohio. I'm sure the 5.2% of Ohioans currently unemployed, not to mention those currently underemployed, would be very interested in that information.
Unlike Mr. Lasley, I am with A.J., State School Board member A.J. Wagner who was also quoted in the article...
"Once these new standards are enacted for the class of 2018, we will see steep declines to about 60 percent (Graduation Rate). This isn't because Ohio's students have lost their intelligence, it isn't because they've stopped trying. It isn't because teachers have suddenly given up, the decline from over 90 percent graduation rate to 60 percent will be from policy makers who have decided that every student must be prepared for college or they must be failed."
"Consequences, especially to the poor and middle income families, be damned," he added.
No comments:
Post a Comment