That's (not) what she said.

In a spectacular turn of events, I received a reply from Senator Lehner having called her out for blaming me (schools really) for the pending Graduation Crisis. I wasn't happy, and based on the response that I got to the post about writing her directly, a lot of other people weren't happy either. 

What I found interesting about the response is that it seemed to be from the Senator herself. While I have gotten responses from other legislators, and lots of standard "thank you for your participation in the democratic process" form emails, I had certainly never gotten a reply from the Chair of the Senate Education Committee. Not even after having emailed the offices of all of the House and Senate Education Committee members multiple times over the last year about the pending Graduation Crisis alone. 

So, as it turns out, the Senator believes that her comments, whatever they were, have been taken out of context. Here is a copy of her message...

 

Mr. Jablonski....this quote was really taken out of context and doesn’t bear any resemblance to what I actually said.  I have consistently placed the blame for the current graduation fiasco on a too rapid implementation of the new requirements. Based on the quote you provided I can’t even tell what I tried to say and I supposedly said it!  

 

OK, so if I'm wrong, and this were taken out of context as Senator Lehner suggests, I apologize. In her defense, many articles on the meeting said that she told the state school board that if they did not fix the issue, then the legislature will. This is very important because the state board's band-aid on this situation will need to be fixed permanently by the legislature. If the ODE follows its own guidelines, it will recommend legislative changes based on ESSA stakeholder input, which vehemently indicates that we need to reduce the level of standardized testing to federal minimums.

To be honest, I want to believe Senator Lehner. My problem stems from her indication that she has "consistently" blamed the fiasco on too rapid implementation of new requirements. When I attended a state school board meeting in June, board member A.J. Wagner was articulating the problems with the graduation requirements. My wife and I were there to support A.J.'s position, so were terribly disheartened when Senator Lehner laughed it off. She assured the state board that there would be no problem. She said it would work out as well as the 3rd grade reading guarantee. Having spoken to an actual 3rd grade teacher or two, this prospect scared the hell out of me. Third grade has become a meat grinder of assessments.

Because of my concern with the term "consistently," and to clarify my position, I shot back a reply to the Senator, and got another timely response, to which I provided yet another reply because I don't like the proposed decrease to 15 total points required for graduation, but prefer the plan proposed by Olmsted Falls Superintendent Dr. Lloyd. His plan involves a full safe harbor for this year's juniors, or a gradual increase in points beginning with 12 this year. His comments to the state board, including his proposed solution to the graduation problem can be found at the bottom of this article from the Cleveland Plain Dealer.

What follows below is the back and forth I had with Senator Lehner. While I'm sure she's exhausted by my bullshit, I feel as if I got to make some decent points regarding the need for, and a possible solution to the Graduation Crisis. I'm still not sure what to make of the initial comments reportedly made by Senator Lehner blaming teachers like me for the problem. I do know that she has, at best, been terribly inconsistent in recognizing that there is a problem. However, I believe that she is committed to finding a solution going forward. I also believe that lowering the point requirement to 15 is not enough, and I will advocate for Dr. Lloyd's proposed solution by contacting each member of the state school board prior to their December meeting. I'll hope you'll consider doing the same.

 

Senator Lehner,

 

Thank you for the prompt reply. A comparable quote was reported by several news outlets, and I have spoken to many colleagues who heard it and were equally frustrated. I also heard you speak at the board meeting in June, sure that the situation with graduation was not a problem. Unfortunately, you were wrong. I'm sure you understand my frustration.

 

I had spent the day teaching American History to the standards. I taught a test remediation class the day before, and had also counseled a hard working student who suffers from anxiety, who as a junior has only amassed 8 points. We are all in a frightening situation in Ohio's high schools. I trust that the state board and legislature will recognize this as we move forward.

 

Thanks again for your reply and consideration.

Matt

 

Matthew I can absolutely assure you that ODE will have an acceptable solution before the end of the year-probably lowering points needed to 15 and gradually increasing up to the 18 points over four years as schools become more familiar with the tests and put remediation programs into place.  The final details will be worked out once all the data is collected.  

 

Thank you Senator.

I will be interested to see the ODE's projected grad rates with a total of 15 required. Thinking of students in urban schools like mine, I'm not sure how much that helps. I just read Dr. Lloyd's proposed plan in the Plain Dealer. It sounds brilliant, starts lower, and seeks to offer opportunities beyond just tests to earn points.

Thanks again for this correspondence. I know you're busy.

Matt Jablonski 

I think Senator Lehner just blamed me for the Graduation Crisis.

 

So, the debate raged today in Columbus about whether or not the Ohio School Board should adjust the graduation requirement so that the statewide graduation rate doesn't drop to 70%. As an educator, I believe that this is the only option. Unfortunately, others disagree, as I discovered when reading an account of the proceedings in the Plain Dealer this afternoon.

I decided not to spend the energy responding to the ass backward sensibilities of Board President Tom Gunlock and Board Member C. Todd Jones who still seem to believe that standardized tests can improve education despite years of data to the contrary. Their comments display a fairly typical far-right wing hatred of teachers and factual information, as well as a love of the warm embrace of privatization (again, no facts allowed).

I was, however, terribly disappointed by comments made by Senate Education Committee Chair Peggy Lehner and State Superintendent of Public Instruction Paolo DiMaria. I believe the Superintendent has purposefully, politically miscalculated the impact of the Paths to Graduation in the aforementioned article. I decided to correct him. My hopefully diplomatic and researched response is at the bottom of this post. 

Senator Lehner, on the other hand, has historically positioned herself as a reasonable defender of pragmatic education policy. Because of her political affiliation I have always been at least cautious of her motivation, but today she attacked me personally. What follows is my message to Senator Lehner. It includes her comments from the PD article.

Senator Lehner, 

The following is from an article in the Plain Dealer regarding today's discussion about the graduation requirement... 

"State Sen. Peggy Lehner of Dayton told the school board that she was hearing from people across the state that something needs to be done. She said that if schools have failed students so much that they cannot score high enough, it is unfair to penalize them now." 

As an American History teacher at Elyria High School who works terribly hard to assure student success, academic and otherwise, I resent your suggestion that this mess associated with graduation is my fault. While I am continually improving as a teacher, this situation is not on me. When the standards changed we adopted them. We changed the nature of our courses and taught to the standards. When the ODE released very little information about the new assessment system over 5 years, we made educated guesses and continued to teach. Our students graduated and went on to successful college careers and gainful employment. When the state botched the rollout of PARCC and AIR, we kept teaching and told our students we were fighting for them. When the state moved to AIR and borrowed test questions from Utah and Nevada, claiming the tests were valid, we taught. When the state school board set arbitrary cut scores based somehow on the idea of the NAEP, we taught, and our kids learned. 

Senator Lehner, with all due respect, I have spent the better part of the last 20 years teaching students to be successful, and they have done just that. It is your 3 Paths to Graduation and the corresponding assessment and points system that is failing students. It is time for you and your fellow legislators, as well as the bulk of the state school board to finally admit that you messed up. The school board can act next month to save this year's juniors, and then the legislature can act in the interest of minimizing standardized tests and their high stakes according to ESSA.

Superintendent DiMaria,

You were referenced in a Plain Dealer article this afternoon as having suggested that the 29% of juniors not on pace to graduate is a high number because it doesn't factor in those pursuing the WorkKeys and ACT path. I fear you are mistaken. The very students scoring well in the testing system are the same students who might graduate by following the other paths. In other words, a current junior who has earned 8 or 10 points on the state assessments is NOT going to earn a remediation free score on the ACT, nor a high enough score toward an industry recognized credential.

Please stop using the 3 paths to graduation as a defense of the current system. It is a false argument. According to the Ohio Economic Policy Institute in analysis of state data, even in districts with only 10% economically disadvantaged students, only 69% were able to earn a remediation free score on the ACT. In districts with 90% economically disadvantaged students the number is 15.1%. As for the WorkKeys path, a study by the Fordham Institute in 2014 said that only one in four students in Ohio's Career and Technical Planning Districts earned an industry credential. As of 2016, of the students attending Lorain County JVS, the vocational school in my area, only 8.9% earned the credential. These are not viable paths to graduation for most students, and neither is the assessment system.

Please look at the research prior to making very public suggestions to the contrary. I realize that you are in a position that forces you to defend an awful system created by the state legislature and the Ohio School Board, then shaped by an ODE not under your leadership. However, this is no reason to sell out a generation of Ohio's children for the sake of politics.

More than a decade of standardized testing has not improved education in Ohio or the United States. Contrary to what you may hear from Mr. Gunlock and Mr. Jones about the objectivity and usefulness of these assessments, no gaps have been closed, NAEP scores have not increased, and Education has not become more rigorous, nor has it improved. Programs improve education. Teachers with time to teach improve education. Counselors with adequate time, unencumbered from being test administrators, improve education.

I hope you'll consider that 29% not on pace to graduate might be about right, or as a matter of fact a conservative estimate depending on your formula. I hope that you will advocate for a "band-aid" for this abysmal system, and then a dramatic downsizing of standardized tests as the ESSA input has recommended, so that we can move forward with some policies that actually improve education.

Thank you for your time, and work on behalf of Ohio's kids. Please contact me if you have any questions that I might be able to address.

Matt Jablonski
American History Teacher
Elyria High School

If you see Mr. Gunlock, tell him I'm doing my job.

 

State School Board President Tom Gunlock trotted out his tired defense of the Graduation Requirement on Ideastream this week indicating that those kids who find themselves short points, say they've got 16 of the needed 18, can simply get some remediation to pick up the extra two points. When the teachers teach the standards, there's no problem.

First of all, we've been teaching the state standards at my school for years. I know that Mr. Gunlock is fond of blaming teachers like me for not teaching the standards, but our success under the prior assessment system should prove my adherence to state standards. We're all exhausted by your teacher bashing. Your current assessment system is a mess, Mr. Gunlock, as are the cut scores you and the school board established. Own the problem you took part in creating. Fix it. Teachers like me are not the issue. Remediation is not the answer.

I'm teaching remediation classes in American History right now. My plan is to try to make an awful and unfair situation tolerable. I'm getting together twice a week with a cool group of motivated kids, and trying to keep it weird, entertaining, and reteach a year long course over 15-20 hours. It's ridiculous. If I'm honest, we spend half of our time together discussing sample questions, and examining how to approach a test essay. The shortest distance between two points is a straight line, as they say, and I would be doing these students a disservice if I didn't help them learn to take the test. You'll notice that I did not say learn American History, or the skills of a historian, or strategies to help them be successful on the job, or skills for college readiness. No, we don't have time for that because we have to jump through these hoops and hope to earn another point or two on a completely irrelevant assessment, so that (God help us) we can earn the 18 points necessary to graduate.

How about one more problem while I'm at it. The vast majority of kids in my urban high school in need of remediation don't have 16 points. They have 6, or 8, or 10. I know a kid with 12 points and only one test left to take, but it's difficult to attend remediation classes to prep for retakes because their courseload includes college classes. I can think of a half dozen kids who are currently gainfully employed, model employees as a matter of fact, who are not on pace to graduate. They can't miss work to go to remediation. Here they are "college and career ready" in real life, but will be unable to earn a high school diploma in this absurd system.

Prior to Board President Gunlock's non-solution, Senator Peggy Lehner explained that we needed these new assessments to increase the rigor that didn't exist before. Apparently, employers have approached her to explain that the kids just don't have the math and reading skills, the soft skills either, to be successful. 

See the above examples, Senator Lehner, and furthermore, I have been contacted by dozens of employers myself to provide recommendations for my students and never have they asked me about their math and reading skills. "OK, so Susan is articulate, works well with others, and exhibits responsibility, but how would you rate her reading skills." "Tommy is a great team player and critical thinker, but how would you classify his skills in mathematics." Even if employers were asking these questions, you are not measuring these skills within this assessment system. Certainly not to the degree that the test(s) should be any sort of determining factor toward their graduation.

In the Senator's defense, as my wife explained it, she went on to say some more productive things, and Dr. Lloyd, the Superintendent of Olmsted Falls Schools delineated the many problems with the system, the fluctuation in tests, methods of testing, and questionable validity. My apologies to both of them, especially Dr. Lloyd, because I couldn't get past this initial wave of bullshit to listen to the rest of the program. I am happy that the issue of the graduation requirement is being discussed. For a long time, I felt like no one was listening at all. The fact that possible solutions are being debated publicly by some very influential people leaves me hopeful. My worry is that the solution will fall short. Too many people seem to believe that there is value in standardized testing. If there is, it is minimal.

The entire Ideastream program was based on the premise that somewhere between 20 and 50% of this year's juniors will not graduate under the current assessment system, and this is too many. What is implicit in this argument, according to Senator Lehner, Mr. Gunlock, and others who share their sensibility regarding testing, is that there is an acceptable level of non-graduates. 

I, for one, can't accept that.

The acceptable level of students being prevented from graduating solely due to performance on standandardized tests, regardless of how many chances they get to take the test, is ZERO. There are simply too many variables for stakes this high to be tied to culturally biased, linguistically confusing, anxiety inducing assessments that measure little more than economic standing  Don't get me wrong, if a student is not attending school, not attempting coursework, or is deficient in the credits necessary as established by the state, then they have not earned a diploma.

Refusing a diploma because of test scores does nothing to help the student, nothing to improve education, and only exacerbates socioeconomic problems in our communities. 

As it stands, more and more people are beginning to get it. Dr. Lloyd has helped to orchestrate a mass demonstration at 10am on Tuesday November 15th on the South Lawn at the Capitol to pressure the State Board of Education and state legislators to fix this mess. Hundreds of Superintendents will be in attendance along with hundreds of local school board members, teachers, parents, and other stakeholders. It coincides with the Ohio School Board's meeting to discuss the Graduation Requirement. For my students and other high school kids statewide, the stakes could not be higher.

If you can get there to raise some hell, please do so.

Unfortunately, I won't be able to attend. I will be teaching according to the Ohio standards associated with 1920's American History, and preparing for my remediation class the following day. If you see Mr. Gunlock, tell him I'm doing my job, along with thousands of other Ohio teachers. It's time he and the others in power in Columbus do theirs.

Change the Graduation Requirement

The Ohio School Board will be weighing in on the issue of the graduation requirement at their meeting on November 14 and 15. I have contacted them to indicate my position and concern over what could be a sharp decline in graduation rates next year. I have made my thoughts quite clear on this matter over dozens of posts on this blog in the past. My message to the school board can be found at the bottom of this post.

Now we need you to make contact with the school board. Many legislators indicated that when the testing system last changed it was due to the sheer volume of correspondence they had received from educators, parents, students, and other stakeholders. You are welcome to use any information that I have provided. However, I would encourage you to tell them your story. If your letter sounds nothing like mine, so much the better. I have somehow become an old teacher and my letters sound like it.

If you are an educator, then tell the story of how this is impacting students in your school. What problems have you faced in teaching toward, and administering these assessments. How have the tests impacted the learning process? How did your students score? How do they feel about the situation? What challenges will you face? If you have ideas on how to fix the situation, let them know.

If you are a parent, describe your children. What concerns do you/they have? How has testing impacted their education? If your kids are in high school, are they on pace to graduate? What about their friends? How will this situation impact their plans for the future? If you have ideas on how to fix the situation, let them know.

If you are a student, explain how testing is impacting your education. How are your scores? Are you in tutoring to retake assessments? What's that like? How do you and your friends feel about this situation? Will this system effect your future plans? Again, if you've got ideas on a fix, let them know.

Whoever you are, if you are concerned about this, find your angle and write the members of the Ohio Board of Education. Save your email. We'll contact our legislators after the November election. Below is the contact information for all board members and the state superintendent. For a cleaner image click here.

 

 

Board Member So and So, and Members of the State School Board,

I was pleased to learn that the Board is studying the terribly problematic issue of high school graduation as it relates to this year's junior class and beyond. As an American History teacher at Elyria High School, I have been concerned about this issue since the results of the 2015 tests were released. This year's scores proved there was no anomaly. As you are aware, some influential stakeholders are estimating that up to 40% of juniors statewide will not graduate next year under the current system.

Prior to any discussion of this, it is important to recognize that these assessments are entirely unnecessary, both legally and philosophically. High stakes standardized tests have not closed any gaps nor improved education since their inception. There is absolutely no federal requirement, under ESSA or otherwise, for graduation to be dependent upon passing a test. Ohio is one of only 14 states to require this, down from 25 states just 10 years ago. Current high school students deserve a "safe harbor" through at least the class of 2020, so that state tests have no bearing on their graduation. I would then encourage that we make this Ohio's permanent policy as we move toward federal minimums in assessments, in line with federal law.

As for the 40% not set to graduate, I would argue that this number is accurate in that urban high schools like Elyria will graduate that amount, while the big urban districts could have grad rates far lower. This is occurring because the 3 Paths to Graduation are a myth. The ACT/SAT route is out of reach for most students. According to the Ohio Education Policy Institute, only 15.1% of students scored remediation free on the ACT in district with 90% or more economically disadvantaged students. The number is 69% for affluent districts with less than 10% economically disadvantaged. The industry credential route also covers very few students. According to the Ohio Report Cards, the Lorain County JVS, which serves Elyria students, only had 8.9% of its students receive the credential.

What students are left with is a scramble through a prohibitive assessment system toward the 18 points necessary for graduation. At Elyria High, students who should be graduating will not graduate. We have set up a system to provide remediation. I am teaching the American History course. However, far more students need assistance than there are spots available, and remediation is little more than targeted test prep. If the purpose of the assessments is to assure that students are college and career ready, as the ODE has so often stated, the system itself only takes time and resources away from programs that might promote this readiness. Advocates believed that this testing system would allow students to supplement low scores with high scores in areas of strength. While this happens, what happens far more often is low scores in multiple areas and a subsequent inability to accrue enough points toward graduation.

What we face is an educational catastrophe brought on by an assessment system in perpetual flux tied to the high stakes matter of graduation. If nothing changes, Ohio will face an economic crisis as well. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that high school graduates earn a median weekly income of $678, while non-graduates earn $493. If the current graduation requirements remain, we will have reinforced the cycle of poverty and thrust countless Ohioans onto public assistance.

It is imperative that the State School Board and the Ohio Legislature act to institute the aforementioned "safe harbor" through the class of 2020, and an elimination of high stakes decisions tied to assessments, like graduation, as allowed by federal law.

Thank you for your time and consideration.
Matthew T. Jablonski

One, Two, Three. End This.

Number One: In a recently released longitudinal study researchers at Stanford University have quantified the degree to which affluent students score higher than economically disadvantaged students on standardized tests.

Number Two: Hamilton City Schools Superintendent Tony Orr has indicated that as many 40% of this year's Juniors will not graduate next year based on Ohio's new testing system.

A Conclusion: Unless the Ohio Department of Education and the state legislature start paying attention and fix the current testing system as it relates to graduation, we will be failing to graduate a ridiculous number of students, many of them simply for being poor.

Number Three: A statement from Ohio Superintendent Paolo DiMaria from the Tony Orr article... 

“If our ultimate goal is the right one — to get students to a higher level — why should we be happy that they’ve already reached (graduation level on the OGT) by sophomore year?” DeMaria said, adding that students may need more time to master some concepts.

Another Conclusion: It is time for the Superintendent to begin actually listening to some of the input he's been asking for, and respond with something more than the rhetoric and talking points he's been fed by the ODE. In this case, the Journal-News seems to have taken an old quote from DeMaria, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. However, it is time for a legitimate response to these concerns.

Graduation (and other) standardized assessments are essentially meaningless except as a measure of economics. How do you respond to this reality, Mr. DeMaria?

I had the opportunity to meet the Superintendent at the recent ESSA stakeholder meeting in Elyria. We talked about the start of the school year, and I thanked him for the opportunity to provide input on Ohio's educational direction. I told him that I looked forward to building something excellent in education in Ohio.

I'm thinking that he should also be made aware of a few things I think he and the ODE are trying to ignore as we adapt our state system to the new federal legislation...

Number One: We test far more than the federal requirements. Other states are moving to the minimums. Stakeholders in Ohio agree. Listen to them. Decrease the time spent on testing.

Number Two: Federal Law does not require high stakes outcomes be tied to standardized tests. Get rid of the 3rd grade guarantee. Get rid of the graduation or End of Course tests (only 14 states do this). Disconnect test scores from teacher evaluation. This will decrease the time spent on test prep and remediation which only exists for the sake of passing a test.

Number Three: Stop pretending that these assessments measure mastery of something, or career and college readiness, or some other bullshit about rigor or high expectations. The data is meaningless. The scores are a measure of economics. If you want to see how schools would perform on assessments look at recent data on median income, unemployment, students on free and reduced lunch...

I feel like I've written this same damn blog post dozens of times. I'm so tired of looking at kids in my building and seeing test scores in their worried faces. Put us out of our misery.

End this.          

Perspectives on Realism

Having spent a week coming to grips with being labeled a failure by Ohio's Report Card, I've begun to take a more philosophical (and angry) approach to what the scores mean. According to State Superintendent Paolo DeMaria, these grades are a small piece of the multitude of evidence that proves the value of our schools. Let's ignore for a moment that it is also the only piece of evidence that the Superintendent and the ODE have made very public. 

What I find more problematic is the premise that teachers like myself, as well as our students, are supposed to be inspired by the label of failure and redouble our efforts in order to find success. I cannot, however, ignore the reality that this has been made impossible by the ODE and state school board because they have arbitrarily set proficiency rates that automatically label 40-50% of students as failures. These rates have nothing to do with the mastery of content, which is better measured on a daily basis by educators, but rather on a desire to have a certain number of kids fail. State School Board Member Sarah Fowler said as much in a letter to her constituents...

"The cut scores were set AFTER the kids took the tests and based upon how they performed. This is not an objective standard, rather it is extremely subjective (ie, "how many kids do we want to see pass and how many do we want to see fail?")."

Many of us have been critical of this situation for years. Throughout this time the ODE has proven their mastery of avoiding criticism and reality, steering conversations in the direction of the bullshit rhetoric of rigor and expectations while completely ignoring the facts. All in all, if the team at the Ohio Department of Education has proven anything, it is that they are unable to respond to criticism, constructive as it may be, and are in no way prepared to admit that they may be wrong in order to do what is right for Ohio's students. The very organization tasked with leading our state's education policy is utterly incapable of learning.

Take Jim Wright, Director of Testing for the ODE, for example. In an article published in the Plain Dealer, Mr. Wright explained Ohio's reasoning for it's cut-scores, which determine which students are proficient and which are not. Apparently, the logic was to have our scores look more like the NAEP scores, but not exactly like the NAEP scores. In case you're unfamiliar, the National Assessment for Educational Progress tests students at intervals, both for the purpose of testing mastery and to see progress over time, depending on the test. Using NAEP scores as a marker for proficiency on state assessments is problematic for a variety of reasons. According to the ODE's logic, it's OK if you only sort of use the NAEP scores and otherwise make some shit up from there.

Wright himself indicates that we didn't use the NAEP. He suggests that in a decision displaying their immeasurable benevolence, the state picked an arbitrary point midway between the NAEP and our previous scores. This way students, teachers, schools and districts can look awful, but not completely awful. From the article...

"Other states have gone directly to a NAEP-like cut, which was pretty drastic," Jim Wright, the director of testing for the Ohio Department of Education, told the state board in June.

Wright said the department instead recommended scores that would show 50-60 percent of students as "proficient," instead of the 80 percent in previous years. He noted that Ohio would still have more "proficient" kids than NAEP says, but it would be "more realistic."

What we keep hearing is that these assessments are designed to measure mastery in a subject in order to assure that Ohio's kids are career and college ready. I'm confused. How does choosing a random percentage midway between the NAEP and our previous (OGT/OAA) scores indicate being on a path to college readiness? I'm only a teacher, not the director of testing for the ODE, but I'm thinking it doesn't. My instinct says that no series of standardized tests can measure college readiness.

In the meantime we're supposed to be grateful for the ODE's realism. I'm not. What Wright fails to recognize in this explanation is that their arbitrary NAEP, but not quite as drastic as NAEP lowering of proficiency numbers actually impacts kids. On an introspective or motivational level, those 40-50% of students earning "Basic" or "Limited" scores have just been labeled as failures. Worse yet, in the world of high stakes outcomes, those 40-50% of students who happen to be in 3rd grade are now in danger of not being promoted. The high school kids in this situation are not on pace to graduate. 

Talk to some high school kids about what is "realistic," Mr. Wright. Being prevented from graduating by bureaucrats despite years worth of effort does not qualify.

What's worse is that Wright himself expressed his concern about the impact of these new assessments on graduation, and now he seems to have forgotten all about it. According to the meeting minutes of the Ohio Technical Advisory Committee, January 26, 2016... 

Jim Wright noted that there are three pathways to high school graduation, but recognized that the new proficiency cuts for End of Course assessments will be challenging if used in defining high school graduation.

So, which is it, realistic or challenging? Realistically challenging, perhaps? For certain kids, anyway. Let's look at this from a different perspective.

A report released this week by the Ohio Education Policy Institute on the state report cards indicates (as it does every year) that Economically Disadvantaged Students perform far poorer on standardized tests than their wealthier counterparts. From the report...

This analysis is far from the first to demonstrate a strong negative correlation between student achievement and socioeconomic status. However, this data shows that in Ohio, the negative correlation between socioeconomic and student achievement has proven all too persistent over time.

The report uses the Performance Index, among many other measures, to make their point. For those unfamiliar, the study defines the PI in this way, "the Performance Index is an aggregate statewide assessment measure which takes into account the performance of each district’s students at the different performance levels (Advanced Plus, Advanced, Accelerated, Proficient, Basic, and Limited) across all of the tests. The maximum PI score is 120 (all students at “Advanced Plus” level)." As you can see in Table 1 below, the higher the percentage of Economically Disadvantaged Students, the lower the Performance Index.

While I'd like to give Jim Wright and the decision making team at the ODE the benefit of the doubt, if they're worth their salt as educational professionals, then they are very aware that impoverished students score poorly on standardized tests as a rule. So, assuming their knowledge of this data, they have either chosen to completely ignore it, or have purposefully chosen to label a far greater percentage of poor children as failures, hold back a disproportionate number of poor children in 3rd grade, and place a disproportionate number of impoverished students in danger of not graduating.

This decision making process is not "more realistic" as Jim Wright says, but is completely at odds with the reality of what these tests measure best, which is socioeconomic status. The state has chosen to fail kids on this measure.

The ODE is at best "Limited" in their ability to make decisions regarding the betterment of Ohio's education policy. In this case I would categorize them as "Basic." They have failed. Perhaps the standards that I'm holding them to are too rigorous, the expectations too high. Based on their own logic, I hope they will work harder, seek remediation, and achieve success.

A good start would be to stop pretending that there is a connection between these assessments and college and career readiness. Your next move would be to convince the legislature to eliminate all high stakes decisions from their link to standardized tests.

Which Side Are You On?

Ohio releases completely invalid state report cards this week which label my fellow teachers and myself, as well as our students, as failures. I, for one, am not buying it. The Ohio Department of Education has, once again, proven itself completely incapable of making decisions for the betterment of Ohio's students. Like the Hansen charter scandal and the rollout of the PARCC assessments before this, the continued insistence on punitive measures tied to standardized tests is the longest standing measure of their ineptitude.

Which side are you on?