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

I never would've guessed.

From the article...

The Ohio Department of Education agrees that the trend is clear. Chris Woolard, the department's head of accountability, said showing that pattern is a goal of the report cards.

"These are aspirational measures that are pointing out a problem," Woolard said. "Not all kids are leaving high school ready for college or work."

By showing districts how many kids are not meeting the state's goals, they now know what they have to work on, Woolard said.

To be fair, the statistics suggest that the problem is poverty, what needs to be worked on is a remedy for poverty. Are Mr. Woolard and the ODE suggesting that continued excessive assessment is necessary in order to point out who is poor? The IRS already does that. Or, worse yet, is he suggesting that my new role as a public school teacher is to somehow remediate the effects of poverty on a child's life? Is that what I know I have to work on?

I consider myself a fairly successful teacher, but I question the expectation here.

What we've illustrated once again with a hefty round of high stakes assessments: Poor kids score poorly, affluent kids score far better.

Again, we should consider the implications when it comes to all high stakes use of this data...

     the 3rd grade reading guarantee

     High School graduation tests

     ACT/SAT scores

     School Ratings

     District Ratings

     Teacher Ratings

Let's remember we're measuring poverty. Since we've already done that, let's abandon a few of these meaningless assessments and their high stakes punishments.

And so, the release of more meaningless data OR three more reasons I'm happy to be an Elyria teacher.

So, the ODE released the K-3 Literacy Rating as well as graduation rates, corresponding scores and some other data. By all counts, there are serious issues with the numbers. In some cases they don't even make mathematical sense. Districts all over the state have been hazing the Department of Education over their release of the information before it clarified the numerous formal appeals and corrections.

The ODE's response is predictably absurd, according to an article in the Elyria Chronicle Telegram,

“According to law, we are required to release the report card,” said Toby Lichtle, assistant director in the ODE’s Office of Communications and Outreach.

Why yes, Toby, the law does require that. Do you know what else the law requires, Toby? The law requires that the state provide equal educational opportunities for its children. It requires the effective and accurate rating of charter schools and sponsors using ALL relevant scores. It also requires an investigation where a public official may have defrauded the public. The law requires that schools be governed by locally elected boards of education. As a matter of fact, the Ohio constitution also requires an equitable funding system for public schools. In short, Toby, the ODE and the Ohio legislature haven't seemed very interested in adhering to the finer points of the law.

Clearly the report cards are far more important than these other issues in that they can be used in the ongoing process of discrediting, defunding, and destroying public education.

Fortunately, many of us in the public schools aren't simply going to accept questionable ratings from an invalid assessment system that diminishes the work we put in on a daily basis. My boss, Elyria Superintendent Tom Jama weighed in on these things this week in articles in the Chronicle and the Lorain Morning Journal. I'll call these quotes three more reasons that I'm happy to be an Elyria teacher, and public school teacher in general.

"These results are just not an accurate assessment of what is being done,” he said. “We are never going to run away from areas of concern. But I know what our teachers and staff are doing each and every day from central office on down to improve the life of our kids. This information is nothing more than one snapshot that is not giving the whole story.”

“The report card isn’t a true and accurate reflection of the district’s performance,” said Dr. Tom Jama, superintendent of Elyria City Schools. “You can’t use a test that has been decided not to be used again, and use the results of the test to label a district. 

“We don’t want to be labeled on a test that included opt outs, negativity. Students who took the tests didn’t take them seriously.”

“As the superintendent, I couldn’t be more proud of the teachers, principals and central office team for what they do each day for kids in this district,” he said. “To have one test or one piece define who we are is absolutely ridiculous. I’m just proud of the entire district. And there’s no doubt in my mind that, that is taking place in all the schools in the county.”

Right on.

Quotes and other info here was taken from the following articles...

http://chronicle.northcoastnow.com/2016/01/14/county-superintendents-wary-of-state-evaluations/

http://chronicle.northcoastnow.com/2016/01/15/districts-question-ratings/

http://www.morningjournal.com/general-news/20160114/superintendents-ask-state-not-to-release-test-results

I decided to be a teacher so that I can spend my free time defending public schools, dodging verbal abuse, suffering uninformed criticism,disseminating information to the contrary, studying pending legislation, and lobbying legislators.

I get asked often why I became a teacher. To be fair, there are a lot of reasons. 

To be honest, it wasn't a decision I was equipped to make at 18 years old. I feel very fortunate that a decision that I made as an old child (more than a young man) has worked out as well as it has.

My favorite answer to the question is that, like a lot of kids, I didn't have an easy time with high school. It wasn't terribly problematic, but it wasn't a walk either. 

While I was there, though, I had the good fortune of encountering some teachers who treated me with interest and respect. I saw that it didn't matter to them if a student was different, didn't have money or wear the right clothes, play the right sports, or quite fit in. They also seemed to genuinely enjoy their jobs, to be having some fun with it. Yeah, some content you had to grind through, but that didn't mean you couldn't keep it entertaining along the way.

On a very basic level, these people were reasonable and decent enough human beings to make time for kids, and not seem put out by the effort.

So, in deciding my career I suppose that my thinking went something like, "Hey, I'd like to be a reasonable and decent human being. Those guys were good people who made me feel like I was good people. Kids have a hard time. I'm going to be the kind of teacher that makes school a more inclusive and fun place to be."

You'll notice the relative lack of depth in my process. I certainly didn't consider the fact that there were absolutely no jobs for history teachers. 

What I think is reflected here is what I valued most in my education, all academic advantages aside, which is the value of relationships. I'm sure that somewhere in there lies the importance of education to a democracy, and a desire to promote critical thought and individuality. However, I got involved in this business to help kids, and have some fun in the process.

This is a terribly simplistic view of a teacher's job. Don't get me wrong, I also understand the professionalism involved. If I took myself too seriously I would reference my degrees and years of experience. I might even provide a copy of the electronic documentation of my satisfaction of the state of Ohio's professional standards for teachers through the albatross that is the Ohio Teacher Evaluation System, the evidence, the artifacts, the pre and post tests, the all important data that supposedly proves my worth. But these things hardly demonstrate the value of a good teacher intent on providing an environment that facilitates the relationships necessary for a quality education.

Coming out of 2015, I feel as if I've spent an inordinate amount of time and energy in a political fistfight to defend the ability of public school teachers to do just that.

It's too much.

This is not why any of us got into education.

So I guess this is about a New Year's resolution, then. 

In 2016, I'm going to focus on being a decent and reasonable human being, accepting of the students I encounter, focused on making school a fun (or at least more tolerable) place to be, just like many of my teachers did for me.

I'd like those in legislative, and other power, positions to consider the same resolution from their own perspective. Strengthen the ability of public school teachers like myself to provide a quality education.

If 2016 is another year of excessive high-stakes testing, the demonization of teachers, unconstitutional school funding, the absurdity of championing a failing charter school system, furthering a process that facilitates the privatization of public schools, and then purposefully misleading the public (I'm looking at you Dick)...

Well, if that's the case, I'm not afraid of the fight.

"An Assessment Written By Ohio Teachers"

Much has been made of the new and improved testing system that will be rolled out this spring. With its shorter assessments and elimination of PARCC as a vendor, the state and accountability advocates claim that the people have spoken, so the state has responded with a more humane system, a more effective system.

Except that it isn't. Length and vendor issues completely miss the point. These tests are telling us nothing about student learning that classroom teachers couldn't answer in greater depth and in a more timely manner. 

It has also been widely documented that the single thing that standardized tests measure best is economic standing. Generally speaking, we can accurately predict test scores from rates of free and reduced lunch in our schools.

As a classroom teacher, this would be the point in my discussion where I offer the obligatory disclaimer that I believe in accountability. Sure, OK. Come into my classroom, interview my students, survey their parents, but please stop insisting that this system of assessment is anything more than it is, a measure of relative poverty.

In a discussion of scores from last year's PARCC and AIR assessments, I heard it suggested that next year's tests will be more valid because they were "written by Ohio teachers."

This is a problematic statement for several reasons. First, they were NOT, in fact, written by Ohio teachers. As has been documented, Ohio is borrowing questions from Florida, Utah, and Nevada for this new round of tests. It would be more accurate to say that portions of these assessments were not even written in Ohio, let alone by Ohio teachers.

To be fair, what those in question were referring to was Ohio teacher participation in a group that also included administrators, members of the Ohio Department of Education, and reps from the American Institutes for Research. These stakeholders met to select existing questions that they believed would accurately depict student mastery of Ohio's standards thus making the tests valid. While this process is commendable in its inclusion, it is hardly "an assessment written by Ohio teachers."

These assessments will also hardly be valid. First, questions regarding validity have become common in states administering tests electronically. Second, the new tests, some being given now as make-up tests in high school and for the 3rd grade reading guarantee, have never been administered before. There have been no field tests or live high-stakes precedents for these assessments, unless you count the use of individual questions on disparate assessments in multiple other states as validating mastery of Ohio standards. The scenario is problematic, and should raise some significant questions. The situation is criminal, especially if you're a 3rd grader relying on this assessment for promotion, or a high school student acquiring points toward graduation.

Once again, I'm stuck quibbling over technicalities that completely miss the point. To say that the next round of tests will be more valid because they're written by Ohio teachers is terribly misleading, and I am not at all happy about the suggestion. However, the larger issue is that we're still suggesting that we can fix a system of punitive standardized tests. We cannot.

Shorten, lengthen, change vendors, include or exclude teachers in the process, and the assessments will continue to measure what they have always measured, the economic standing of the students assessed.

Assessments and Poverty

Say what you will about the "Every Child Succeeds Act," it ain't no Race to the Top, nor is it No Child Left Behind. Yes, there are issues, but it is better than the current system. 

Best of all, it brings the fight regarding accountability, among other things, to the states.

I took this week's House passage of the ECSA, and combined it with some unsettling news about poverty rates in the city where I live, threw in the annual study that illustrates that standardized testing measures poverty better than anything else, and delivered the message to my legislators.

We have spent a long time and a lot of money on an assessment system that does a terrible disservice to our children. It's time for it to change. Check out the letter below, then go contact your reps as well. 

Senator and Representative Manning,

I hope this finds you well and in anticipation of the holiday season. I also hope that you had the opportunity to read the Plain Dealer article regarding the correlation between test scores and poverty. If not it can be found here...

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2015/12/poor_kids_do_poorly_affluent_do_better_on_ohios_state_tests_-_again.html

Perhaps you read the similar report at the Columbus Dispatch here...

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/12/02/test-scores-correlate-to-income.html

Put simply, the only thing that our system of standardized tests is accomplishing is indicating to us which students are wealthy and which are poor. This corroborates the evidence found in studies from previous years which indicated the exact same thing. Schools with high poverty rates will perform at lower levels on standardized tests than those with low rates of poverty. I would be so bold as to predict that if we continue testing for another hundred years the same would be true.

What is at least equally problematic are the Lorain County poverty statistics shared by the Chronicle Telegram this week. In case you missed it, the article is here...

http://chronicle.northcoastnow.com/2015/12/03/local-census-data-released-reeling-from-recession/

Median income countywide has dropped from $57,357 to $52,610. 

In my city, Elyria, the poverty rate has climbed from 15.9% to 20.3%.

Obviously, these economic conditions have an incredible impact on the students that I encounter daily at Elyria High. If we were to couple the findings that I've mentioned here, add in an atrocious new testing system and graduation policy, then I believe that we could predict overall lower test scores in years to come as well as lower graduation rates. 

It doesn't have to be this way. We test far more than the federal mandate in Ohio, and at higher stakes. As you know, requiring tests for graduation is not federal law, nor is the 3rd grade reading guarantee. And it gets better...other news this week indicates that the revision of ESEA (No Child Left Behind), the so-called "Every Student Succeeds Act" has passed the House, will likely pass the Senate, and is nearly certain of a Presidential signature. The bill is not great, but it is far better than the "test and punish" philosophy of the current law. There is some information on that bill in a Wall Street Journal article here...

http://www.wsj.com/articles/no-child-left-behind-replacement-plan-shifts-power-to-states-on-education-1448928806

We have spent a ridiculous amount of time and money on assessment here in Ohio and found that we can consistently measure levels of poverty, not achievement. The federal government is about to provide us with an opportunity to dramatically scale back this senseless system, and I look forward to continuing our dialogue on doing just that. Perhaps then we can allocate our resources to more valuable ends like supporting programs that help to remediate the effects of the growing poverty in our communities.

Thank you, as always, for your work and consideration. 
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and your families.

Matt Jablonski

"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.