"Certificate of Attendance?!" or "Another Rambling Argument In Which the Author Makes His Case Regarding the Graduation Requirement" or "Paolo Did What!?" or "I'm not sure how much longer I can go on like this..."

  "We don't want to lower our graduation requirements."

Let me begin by admitting that I'm finding it difficult to wrap my mind around the confirmation of an unqualified advocate of plagiarism to a position of educational leadership at the federal level. I also cannot make sense of another Kasich budget proposal that swaps tax cuts for the wealthy for the well being of Ohio's children through cuts to public school funding, or increases that don't even keep pace with inflation. To be honest, I'm still taking deep breaths to quell the rage inside over the ODE's ESSA plan that completely ignored stakeholder input, though it was great to get an invite to a webcast Q & A on ESSA until I realized it was scheduled for today at one while I, and every other damn teacher in Ohio was TEACHING! Thanks for the "unvitation" Superintendent DeMaria. Which is to say, thanks for nothing.

If the rumors coming out of the Graduation Workgroup are true, thanks for nothing there as well, Paolo. Word has it that DeMaria prohibited a discussion of the assessments at the first meeting, and then brought in a rep from the American Institutes for Research (the company that sells us the tests) to explain the value of the assessments at the second meeting. I can't figure out why DeMaria is the facilitator. It was my understanding that the State Board tasked him with forming the group, not running it. Perhaps he wants to assure that the Workgroup's recommendations align with the ESSA plan so that he and the ODE can celebrate their openness to suggestions and then not do shit about the problem.

Contrary to that thesis is some recent information from Columbus suggesting that a "Certificate of Attendance" is being discussed as a solution for the graduation problem. When used, this replacement for a diploma is typically provided to those who are unable to participate in a typical high school experience, very often due to disability. That is not the situation in which our high school students find themselves, which makes this proposal completely unacceptable. 

The "problem" is less one of student participation or performance, than a gross mismanagement of, which led to instability within, the assessment system. Whether it was the use of two testing windows, widespread public opposition to PARCC, the subsequent switch to AIR, discrepancies in scores between paper/pencil vs computer test takers, the state board's ineffective manipulation of cut scores, not to mention the long researched issues regarding the limitations of data from standardized test performance, this system has in no way served students. Offering a "Certificate of Attendance" for the inability to find success in this abysmal system is insulting. It will provide no benefit at all, and seems to blame students for a situation largely out of their control.

It also has some very real ramifications  Students in this situation will find themselves unable to enlist in the military. The certificate also prevents them from applying for federal financial aid. Because research has shown that standardized test performance has a strong negative correlation with relative poverty, we will be creating a situation where the students who struggle most on the assessments, the kids most in need of financial aid, are unable to even apply for the assistance. Students who before might have needed remediation courses at the start of their college career will now find themselves unable to afford any training for future employment. 

Those who would argue that a student unable to pass a state test is not college ready are not looking at the full ramifications of the decision to prohibit diplomas to all but assessment savvy students. They are also assuming a correlation between scores on standardized assessments and college readiness. Because this testing system in Ohio is so new, longitudinal studies on this are non-existent. However, even if a correlation exists, I would propose that if these standardized tests are in fact a predictor of college readiness, and those standardized tests show a strong negative correlation with economic status as years of data has already proven, then couldn't we simply use poverty rates or median income as our predictor of college readiness? Or do we need to spend millions of dollars more on standardized assessments to tell us what we already know, which is that poor kids perform poorly when compared to their affluent peers? 

I would propose limiting standardized assessments to the federal minimums, and diverting the millions of dollars saved into programs that help to remediate the effects of poverty, like after school and mentoring programs, access to medical and dental, as well as counseling services. This, of course, would require an approach to ESSA that saw the state actually doing something to promote student achievement.

What we have done in Ohio, as well as nationally, is to place far too much stock in a student's performance on a standardized test. Those most resistant to reducing the weight of assessments on graduation seem unwilling to recognize the accomplishments of students outside of those tests. On a basic level, 6 of the 7 high school assessments are completed by the end of 10th grade (barring excessive and unnecessary retakes). Students participate in 2 more years of coursework after that point. To hear critics of the demand to adjust the graduation requirements, students do nothing of value outside of the tested subjects.

From another perspective, the tests themselves include only a snapshot of the whole of the curriculum covered. In the course I teach, American History, a student might gravitate toward material related to Civil Rights based upon their interest, but build less connection with Historic Documents. If test makers weight the Documents greater than Civil Rights, this student is at a disadvantage regardless of the time, effort, or remediation undertaken. Furthermore, even within Civil Rights, a given student's area of expertise, they may be drawn to the direct action of Dr. King and the SCLC, but test makers may decide to focus instead on federal legislation or the role of Lyndon Johnson. Obviously, this creates significant problems in determining student "proficiency" which Ohio law says is necessary for graduation. While the above scenario is anecdotal, educators who advocate a Constructivist approach would argue that "standardization" is quite contrary to student learning.

The reality is that the graduation requirement, as it exists, heavy with assessment, does not promote or even recognize activities that build the soft skills more vital to success in college and the workplace. I'm referring to things like communication and cooperation, teamwork, empathy, the ability to discover credible information and use it to solve problems. These skills are promoted through cooperative, project-based learning (nearly impossible in a standardized system). Involvement in student government, clubs and activities, theater and other arts programs, and athletics, also develop these things. Other students hone these skills through internships, employment, or in service to their communities. ALL of these things, and more, make up the whole of the high school experience. Despite this, policy makers have placed an inordinate weight on an innately flawed assessment system. 

The level of participation by the typical high school student makes the idea of issuing "Certificates of Attendance" insulting. They are deserving of a better system. They are deserving of a diploma.

State leaders need to come to terms with the fact that our current graduation requirements, the 3 Paths, are failed policy. It's alright to admit this failure. We have an opportunity to learn from these mistakes, just as we ask Ohio's students to learn from theirs as a vital part of their education. The graduation requirement can be fixed in such a way as to value the legitimate work that students apply to their education. Whether we minimize the points necessary from test scores in order to graduate, provide opportunities to earn points through other achievements unmeasurable by assessments, or otherwise decrease the weight of assessment performance as it relates to graduation, we owe this to our students. We owe them more than a meaningless attendance certificate.