"Proficient or Above" or "Why do I have to deal with this shit?"

Ohio released its preliminary scores today for the next generation assessments administered last spring. In them they indicate the percentage of students who scored "Proficient or Above." As a high school teacher, I am interested in the implications on student graduation according to the new formula as it relates to the released scores.

Fortunately for our students, the ODE has made the path to graduation simpler by making it more complex. Students may graduate through an acceptable score on a certification in a vocational field. OR They may graduate through receiving a remediation free score on a college entrance test (scores not yet verified). OR They may graduate by earning 18 combined points on the aforementioned state assessments with a minimum of 4 points from 2 assessments in mathematics, a minimum of 4 points from 2 assessments in English Language Arts, and a minimum of 6 points from assessments in Biology, American History, and American Government equaling a total of 14 points with the 4 additional points picked up when students score 3 or higher, which is to say "Proficient or Above."

Does that make sense? My sophomores couldn't explain it to me either, and they're expected to graduate under that system. Fear not, I provided a thorough and engaging explanation replete with visual aids and low brow humor that seemed to do the trick. I could not, however, provide them with a satisfactory explanation as to why they "have to deal with this shit." (Their words, not mine)

As for the scores...

I teach American History, which has always been a tested subject toward high school graduation. If I'm not mistaken, on the Ohio Graduation Tests our Social Studies "Proficient and Above" percentage was typically around 70% and better for sophomores. The percentage for last year's next generation assessment in American History was 40.3%. To be honest, I'm disappointed it wasn't lower. Last year's students who took the tests did NOT need it to graduate. They graduate with the OGT, but were required to take this test too just for kicks. I am appalled that 40.3% of students took it seriously enough to score at these levels. Granted, our official message was simply "do your best," but these kids knew that they were getting screwed into taking another test. I feel terribly that I was complicit in implementing this system. I overheard lots of students say things like, "I just wrote F-U a dozen times in those essays, man." and I couldn't help but smile. One girl was called out of my class to test, and returned five minutes later.

What is more problematic, of course, are the comparable low percentages of "Proficient and Above" in subjects taken by this year's students, whose graduation is actually dependent upon this system. 

          ELA 9: 67.2%

          Algebra: 47.8%

          Geometry: 79% (students taking Geometry as Freshmen)

          Physical Science: 40.2% (transitioning to a Biology assessment)

The above percentages represent students who achieved the theoretical minimum required, plus at least one. That's good for them. However, 59.8% of students who took the Physical Science test failed to keep an adequate pace toward graduation. (Again, these are the numbers from my school) Yes, that is the subject with the worst scenario, but all of these scores are far more problematic than the remediation that was necessary with the OGT.

Now, the state has provided "safe harbor" for these kids, allowing them to retake tests. We're administering retakes in December, and encouraging students who scored 1's to retake. However, because students are getting their scores next week, this will leave no time to even glance at relevant review materials before they retake a test on a subject they studied last year.

But wait, it gets worse...if a student scores moderately well, say a 2 on these early tests, and assume that they'll pick up points this year, but only score at those levels again or just higher, a 2 and a couple of 3's on this year's tests, then they've got some serious problems. All of their eggs are in one basket, the American Government test, where they may NEED a 5 in order to graduate. 43.7% of students scored "Proficient and Above" on the Government test according to the numbers just released. Well, it's statistically improbable that a student who scores low on prior assessments will miraculously pull down a 5 in Government, so they will need to retake tests. Now they're conceivably retaking assessments on subjects they studied 2 years prior, and counting on significantly higher scores than they earned previously.

Look, maybe my scenario here is confusing. On a very basic level, this new testing system is terribly problematic. The issues lie in the fact that it is new, and being created as we go, but also in the nature of the convoluted paths to graduation themselves. The sheer number of variables at play here are impossible to fathom, from student strengths to test performance, low scores in these areas, but not those, 2 points here, other scores there, nothing formalized until very late. Now, take this level of absurdity and factor in real problems like hunger, poverty, instability in the home, disability, health problems, you name it, and you have a recipe for disaster. 

What seemed like a more humane system to someone is turning out to be nothing short of a nightmare. And now the tests are changing again in ELA and Math. Who knows what new issues may arise?

How many students will be adversely affected? I don't know. The ODE deals in percentages, I deal in human beings, the 140 plus sophomores I'm teaching. Like the one who told me, "I left half that math test blank. We hadn't even learned that stuff yet." Or the other kid who said, "There were some questions...I didn't even know what they were asking." These are good people, hard working kids that we're simply grinding through this machine for some political rhetoric regarding career and college readiness.

When I startle myself awake at 3 in the morning, and stare into the darkness toward the ceiling, I'm not thinking of percentages or politics. I'm thinking about these kids in my class and what I can do to assure their success, to assure that they become expansive and critical thinkers. I am looking to expand their horizons and opportunities, not limit them through a testing system that, for the most part, has not gone through an appropriate level of validity testing, nor been implemented long enough to assure reliability. A system like this only serves to increase levels of anxiety, even among advanced students (especially among advanced students), and to punish. As always, all we're really measuring is socioeconomic status. Look at the scores. What districts are top? What is their median income? How does that compare to the median income, or poverty level of the districts at bottom?

I have no interest in a punitive high stakes testing system. I am only interested in "Proficient and Above" percentages inasmuch as they impact the kids I teach. I am ashamed to be a part of the implementation of such a system, and I work every day to attempt to remediate its terrible impact. Like many of you, I am angry.

News of the death of the American public school teacher has been greatly exaggerated (a short poem)

      Teachers and the Stages of Grief.

On one of those

bright early fall days

when odd shadows

cast across hardwood floors

speak of the severity

of changing seasons,

we speak

of how we love our work

as someone in discussion

of the recently deceased.

"Man, we really had a good time

with that lesson on the Federal Reserve,"

I said, falling into it

wistful and bittersweet,

melancholy,

almost tearful.

"He was the nicest guy

you'd ever want to meet,"

I could've been saying

in the same tone.

We're fluctuating between

depression and acceptance

as our work is increasingly

questioned.

Not quite ready

to give in

or give up

on most days,

I'm lobbying to add

revolution

as the final

stage of grief.

So long, Dick.

"Nice laptop, Timmy. A gift from Ohio taxpayers, I mean your charter school."

Justice would be this man being investigated and tried for fraud, mismanagement of public funds, and criminal negligence against Ohio's school children. However, men from his social standing don't get punished for their crimes, they get a fat retirement check and a comfortable home in a homogenous neighborhood in an affluent suburb of the state capital.

As it stands, this champion of failing charter schools and their mismanagement of millions in public dollars, supporter of the abusive 3rd grade reading guarantee, accomplice in the privatization of public schools, leader of the roll-out of two excessive, inappropriate and wildly unnecessary standardized testing systems...not to mention the wholly intrusive albatross that is the Ohio Teacher Evaluation System, co-author of The Youngstown Plan, and accessory to the manipulation of charter school data in the interest of channeling bonuses to Republican friendly charter school sponsors...this guy, gets to ride quietly into the sunset of a second retirement.

Lesser men are jailed for these offenses, at least publicly shamed. Ohio Schools Superintendent Dick Ross will be profusely thanked by all of his crooked friends who currently hold an office for everything he's done for Ohio's children.

Bullshit. Thanks for nothing, Dick.

Phone Forum Propaganda with ODE Associate Superintendent Lonny Rivera and an Ohio Teacher of the Year.

I just took part in a telephone forum, conference, what have you, regarding Ohio's new learning standards and assessments.

We were told by Lori Michalec, Ohio Teacher of the Year from Tallmadge High School, that she assures her students that "the tests aren't punitive."

First, someone should tell Lori that if her students do not do well enough on their state tests at the high school level, then they do not graduate. This is, by definition, punitive.

Also, third graders who do not pass the reading test are held back. Again, punitive.

Finally, Ohio's Teacher Evaluation System relies heavily on student test scores which can dramatically impact teacher ratings. These ratings can then used to determine teacher salaries or job security. Depending on the situation, this can also be quite punitive.

She also assured the audience of Ohioans that she never teaches to the test, but rather "simply teaches" the skills necessary for her students to find success. Test prep, in her opinion, is utterly unnecessary.

Her message was clear until she later discussed the valuable data provided by state assessments. While she acknowledged that this year's data will come late, she assured the audience that it normally comes much earlier. This is misleading. While it has never arrived the following year, even the high school tests that used to be given in March never produced results until mid-May. That's a few weeks before students leave for summer. This hardly makes the data valuable for the students or their teachers.

However, the teacher of the year explained that she looks at her students' scores in order to determine where her teaching succeeded, and in what areas she might "do more." I nearly threw up in my mouth. What she is talking about here is teaching to the test. She'll do more to assure student success on those weak components of the assessment. 

In brilliant form, she contradicted her own teaching philosophy and proved the utter worthlessness of data from standardized tests.

Lonny Rivera from the ODE was also on the scene assuring everyone that the tests are written by Ohio teachers, and are only given after a thorough validity study. He did indicate that this year we are getting some questions from "the vendor." However, he failed to indicate that those vendor questions are being purchased from Florida, Utah, and Nevada. Nor did he mention that all of those states have had issues aligning questions to their standards, which brings their validity into serious question.

He also avoided a question about whether or not charters are measured in the same way as public schools. It's OK Lonny, I already know they're not.

So, I dialed star 3 to address some issues, but they ran out of time before I had an opportunity to speak. I don't think my commentary would have fit in with their propaganda.

Hi Andy.

In an ideal world, the leader of the Ohio House Education Committee would meet with people like me, public school teachers with experience in the classroom and a moderate knowledge of educational policy. We've gone so far from logic in educational policy in Ohio that this has become terribly unlikely.

I, however, imagine a more beautiful scenario where Representative Andy Brenner and I sit down and shape policy for the betterment of all of Ohio's students. He shares something about his love of Ayn Rand. I convey my working class sensibilities, and love of Steinbeck. In my scenario, I describe Elyria as Cannery Row and champion the saints in my city who've become victims of the system, and somehow Andy buys it. Or a bit of it, perhaps. Anyway, I wrote Rep Brenner in the interest of my dream, and I encourage you to contact him too. Here's my letter to Andy...

Representative Brenner,

Congratulations on your promotion to Chair of the House Education Committee. As a public school history teacher at Elyria High School, I look forward to your efforts on behalf of all of Ohio's kids. Having championed shorter assessments, and having voted for HB2, you have begun the process of correcting what has become a troubled education system, and laughable charter school system.

Let us be clear. This progress is fine and well, but it is a beginning. HB2 is important, but terribly limited. Public schools like mine still outperform charters despite Ohio law working in their favor. Let's level that playing field, Rep Brenner.

I also believe it's high time our legislators addressed the unconstitutional funding system and resume adequate funding to successful publics. A vital component of this would be fixing a system that allows charters to get funding for nonexistent students, or those who had returned to their home, community public school, but remain on charter rosters.

As for student success, our testing system still sucks far too much time from instruction, and its high stakes nature warps any prospect of meaningful instruction or authentic learning. Ohio's children deserve a move to federal minimums of standardized tests at a shorter duration.

These are the issues that come to mind off the top of my head this evening, Mr. Brenner. I hope that in your new position, you will be open to public input regarding Ohio's education system. I can assure you that I enter my classroom daily with a deliberate resolve to do everything in my power to assure my students' success. When you accepted your position you indicated a desire to "make sure every child in this state has equal access to an excellent public education." I agree. Let's go.

Please, let me know your plans as we move forward. If there is anything that I can do to be of assistance in the way of educational experience or otherwise, do not hesitate to ask.

Yours in education.

Matt Jablonski

All Hail the New Chair of the House Education Committee

Who's that? Why it's Powell's Republican Representative Andy Brenner, the new chairman of the House Education Committee.

Rep Brenner is an outspoken conservative charter school supporter tasked with leading a legislative committee on policy issues to ensure equal educational opportunities for Ohio's children.

He has shown an interest in assuring that Ohio's children are not over-tested. He sponsored a bill a few years back that sought to limit assessments to four hours per subject per year. This was more testing for some subjects at the time. He then got on board with the push for 3 hour tests and the elimination of PARCC.

Here's a Plain Dealer article that quotes Andy on testing...

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2015/09/state_cuts_math_and_english_te.html

Anyone who follows Rep Brenner on Twitter or Facebook can attest to his being a bit of a reactionary. He even took time out of his schedule to call and yell at me when I criticized his 4 hour plan. "Do you even know what the bill does!!" I did know. I'm not even in his district and yet he took time out of his busy afternoon to argue with me about my conflicting viewpoint. At least I know he's paying attention.

More frightening, however, was Brenner's recent comparison of Planned Parenthood to Nazi Germany. I am appalled by this attempt to demonize for several reasons. First, because I disagree with Rep Brenner on the politics of the issue, and in general on the idea of politicizing the issue of health care, which I believe is a human right. Furthermore, to use Nazi Germany is the most predictable, terribly unoriginal, and insulting rhetorical hyperbole at his disposal. Rep Brenner is welcome in my public school any time to learn more about the tenets of National Socialism in order to better intellectualize his opinions in the future.

Here's a piece on Andy's take on Planned Parenthood...

http://www.plunderbund.com/2015/07/23/state-rep-andy-brenner-compares-planned-parenthood-to-nazis/

And, of course, Brenner has equated public education to "socialism." (He assumes, I suppose, that we all consider socialism to be a bad thing) At the time, he believed that a move to a privatized system is better. Called out on the issue, he backpedaled a bit.

Here's Brenner's take on the evils of socialism, I mean public education...

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2014/03/19/legislators-school-views-rankle-some.html

So, should we supporters of public education be afraid. Perhaps, but I'm going to go with cautious. I don't anticipate a dramatic shift toward wholehearted support of public schools, but in light of a legislative response to the citizenry's demand to remedy assessment issues, and the more recent passage of charter school reform, I would hope that Representative Brenner would be more responsive to the public and less combative.

On accepting his new position he said, "I am passionate about making sure that every child in this state has equal access to an excellent public education, and am excited to have this opportunity.”

He sounds up for the job, or like a consummate bullshitter.

Either way, let's welcome Representative Brenner to his new position, and let him know what we think his priorities should be going forward...

Find him on Facebook here...

https://www.facebook.com/BrennerForOhio

Twitter...  @andrewbrenner

Or contact him at the office...

77 High Street

13th Floor

Columbus, OH 43215

(614) 644-6711

rep67@ohiohouse.gov

When school pictures arrived I enjoyed a slight tweak to the overall message in order to create this informative door sign.