Connections.

 

House Ed Committee Chair Rep Andy Brenner and I disagree.

I read the following over coffee this morning...

"State Rep. Andrew Brenner wants to ease the blow to charter school overseers made by the poor grades of giant online schools." This appeared in an article in the Plain Dealer regarding a proposed amendment to the coming budget bill. Critics of the measure, like Senator Joe Schiavoni, believe that it would eliminate any motivation for schools like ECOT to improve educational opportunities for students. He's right. It would certainly minimize what little oversight the state has created for charter schools, but I thought of something else.

An article on the Graduation Crisis from the Plain Dealer dated March 28th had this from Rep Brenner...

Brenner, a Powell Republican, said he would support giving points for being in things like science or math clubs, but deciding which others have real learning value is hard.

"That leads to bigger problems," Brenner said.

He also supported a way for students who do well in class but just do not handle tests well to earn points, while worrying that schools with students on the edge will end up with grade inflation.

"That's going to put pressures on teachers to adjust grades," Brenner said. "There's always going to be a push-pull on this."

So, when it comes to making adjustments for his friends in the charter industry because assessment scores and attendance are awful, he is all for it, but when it comes to an equitable graduation system for Ohio's students, he finds it worrisome. When I suggested this to Rep Brenner on Twitter, he said that that's not what he meant. Unfortunately, he also suggested that there is no graduation crisis, which I find terribly alarming for the third of Ohio's juniors in danger of not receiving a diploma.

 

Yes, this is the Chair of the Ohio House Education Committee denying an issue with graduation, despite 30,000 students being negatively impacted by an assessment system he helped to create. And what of his claim regarding the scores?

Like most who hold his mindset, Brenner fails to recognize that in the United States we test ALL students regardless of economic status which, according to research, plays a role. Can we do a better job educating students in the US? Certainly. I attempt to improve my practice as a teacher every day, and work to better the system in which my students learn. Unfortunately, Rep Brenner decided to suggest something different of me...

 

First, by definition the poor have fewer resources, regardless of what schools provide, which is often inadequate. Next, I have to assume that Mr. Brenner is completely unaware that I teach in a district with 59% economically disadvantaged students, or he wouldn't have been so boorish as to suggest that I am only attempting to teach 41% of my students because I don't believe the others are capable of learning. Either way, I find the suggestion insulting, so I told him as much...

 

Please, don't get me wrong, I do not pretend, nor claim to be able to understand the full reality of a life lived in poverty. However, I am able to grasp the limitations of my understanding, and allow that to inform my practice as an educator, the opportunities I present to my students, and reflection on the process. I believe that stating a belief in the poor's ability to learn, then celebrating the "resources" they have is a terrible oversimplification of a very complicated reality. So is ignoring the implications of poverty on the educational process.

On the up side, Representative Brenner believes poor people can learn. On the down side, I'm not convinced he's ready to act for the benefit of Ohio's students regarding our albatross of an assessment system and the Graduation Crisis (that does, in fact, exist). Before my spring break ends, I plan to send the following note to EVERY legislator in Ohio, Representative Brenner included, in the hopes that they might see things my way, or at least be willing to take a few steps in my direction.

Please consider writing your own letter on behalf of our students, and contacting our legislators. Here's a link to the Senate Directory. Here's a link to the House Directory. Here's mine...

Senator...

I am writing you today on behalf of the Class of 2018, to encourage you to act on the recommendations of the Superintendent's Workgroup on Graduation, at minimum. I say "at minimum" because I'm not entirely convinced that the recommendations of the Workgroup will sufficiently remedy the pending Graduation Crisis. I believe Senator Lehner was correct when she said, “I’m a little bit concerned that it’s not going to capture as many kids as we maybe think it will. 2.5 is a pretty high GPA. And for an amazing number of these kids, that (93 percent) attendance rate is pretty high.” 

I believe a safe harbor for this year's juniors is the only equitable solution considering the 3 year assessment mess that created the crisis. This should be followed by a sincere move toward the minimization of assessments, and abandonment of high stakes measures associated with them, as has been recommended by stakeholders statewide.

Ohio is one of only 14 states to require assessments in order to graduate, and as an American History teacher at Elyria High School I can say without hesitation that the benefit of these assessments is negligible. High School GPA remains the best predictor of college success. The assessments and pathways do nothing to promote student pursuit of vocational programs. Even when the ODE was forthcoming with data from state assessments, the only real purpose it served was to direct educators to help students be more successful on assessments.

No Child Left Behind ushered in this test and punish mentality in 2001. During the time since, scores for high school students have stagnated on the NAEP, SAT scores declined between 2006 and 2014, and ACT scores have been flat. The philosophy has run its course.

While I understand, politically, that some testing will remain, the time for punishing students on the basis of standardized tests is over. Please consider a safe-harbor for the class of 2018, or minimally moving forward with the Workgroup's suggestions. If there is anything that I can do to be of assistance, please let me know.

Thank you for your time and service to the state of Ohio.

Yours in education,

Matthew T. Jablonski

Graduation Workgroup Solutions Earn a Score of One.

 

The Workgroup Says... Here's a solution that might not solve anything.

The Springfield Sun-News today explained the allowances recommended by the Superintendent's Grad Workgroup for the class of 2018.

"The first recommendation of the group was that Class of 2018 students who passed their required courses and took all seven state tests (regardless of score) could graduate if they met two of these six requirements: 93 percent attendance senior year, 2.5 GPA in senior-year classes, complete a capstone project, have 120 hours work experience or community service, earn three or more College Credit Plus credits, or earn a score of 3 or better on an Advanced Placement exam."

Superintendent DeMaria explained that this is necessary because he's "sensitive" that this has been a "transition" through a variety of tests, so deserves special consideration. He assures the public that he's confident that ALL students will reach these "new levels" set by the state.

I'm not sure where to begin, so I'll translate. You can fill in the hidden meaning and see what you think...

Sensitive = Blind to the Fact

Transition = Train Wreck

Special Consideration = Lip Service

ALL students = Enough Kids to Satisfy the Most Vocal Opposition 

These New Levels Set By the State = Compliance with a state system that does nothing to improve education.

Me and My Students.

I spoke individually with dozens of sophomores today. A few are just killing it on these tests. They're bright and test very well. Others are on pace for the 18 points, maybe a point or 2 low on the average. Still others are growing sick with worry, only a couple points on a couple tests, some who took retakes with no improvement. A few mentioned how terrible the scores make them feel. "I feel like a failure," one kid told me. I told them not to feel that way. They're not failures, but the assessments send that message. These are personable kids who work hard, participate in athletics or student council, have jobs. They're the pride of their families. They know how to organize and work as a team. Their success in academic classes is often, predictably, driven by interest. A few may struggle with math. Others don't like language arts, but love numbers. Sometimes one state test score balances another. Most of the time they don't.

I'm looking these kids in the eye and telling them what needs to be done, remediation, retakes. It's a waste of their academic time. They know it and so do I, without saying a word. They also know that they might not graduate unless something changes. I'm promising them fours and fives on the assessment for my class. "You'll make up those points," I tell them. This is a statistically improbable promise, but I will do everything within the rules to help them achieve. This is what teachers do.

Out of Touch

The Grad Workgroup's proposal, released today in a variety of news outlets  is completely out of touch. What they're suggesting is that a kid who scored a 1 or 2 on an ELA or Algebra test should just acquire some College Credit Plus hours or score a 3 or better on an AP test. Have these people ever met any of the students to whom their "sensitivity" is being directed? Are they aware of their home lives, the issues they bring to school? Do they understand how learning works, and how abilities differ dramatically from child to child? They also would recommend fitting 120 volunteer hours in with hundreds of hours of remediation for, and retakes of state assessments.

God bless Senator Peggy Lehner for weighing in realistically on the two "easier" options, 93% attendance and a 2.5 GPA...

“For the kids that are really struggling to pass, I think you’re going to find it’s not easy at all,” said Lehner, R-Kettering. “I’m a little bit concerned that it’s not going to capture as many kids as we maybe think it will. 2.5 is a pretty high GPA. And for an amazing number of these kids, that (93 percent) attendance rate is pretty high.”

She's right. As far as I can tell there has been no study to determine what additional percentage of students will graduate with this offering. I hope that she's as good as her promise of a few months ago in which she said legislators would fix this if the board can't. This Workgroup is evidence that the Superintendent, the ODE, and the board acting on their behalf have no intention of coming up with a LONG TERM SOLUTION to this problem.

The ODE powers that be are too busy either patting themselves on the back for their sensitivity, or complaining that this makes it too easy. From the Springfield article...

Tom Zaino of the Ohio Chamber of Commerce argued that the remaining requirements didn’t ask much. “I don’t think they’re that tough,” Zaino said. “I don’t know what it does to lower it, except why don’t we just say everybody graduates?”

With all due respect to Mr. Zaino, who I'm sure wow's them in his career as a corporate tax attorney, even if you eliminate the assessments, everyone doesn't graduate. All he's done with that comment is to illustrate how unbelievably misinformed he is, as well as suggest that he's stealing his lines from Tom Gunlock and Todd Jones, as well as Governor Kasich. Also, if you "don't know what it does," then why the hell are you even weighing in on the issue?

Solutions: This One's for Andy.

Someone tweeted my last post about former state board member Tom Gunlock's irrelevant rambling to House Education Committee Chair Representative Andy Brenner  who complained that I offered no solutions. In my defense, had Mr. Brenner read prior posts on the issue or any of the emails that I have sent him, then he would be well aware of my ideas for solutions. In his defense, I'm sure he's a very busy man and doesn't have the time to read all correspondence or the often agitated ramblings of this Ohio teacher. With that said, here you go, Mr. Brenner. If there's anything I can do to help, let me know.

SHORT TERM SOLUTION: (Thanks to my wife, Mandy, for tirelessly championing this solution)

Because of the significant distress and mismanagement associated with the PARCC assessments, subsequent changes of vendor and test construction, as well as the switch between paper/pencil and computer based tests, recognizing the fact that all other groups were given a pass on punitive measures related to those assessments, the Class of 2018 shall have a complete "safe harbor" from the punitive effects of assessment scores related to the Graduation Requirement.

LONG TERM SOLUTION:

While I advocate for the elimination of punitive measures associated with standardized tests, and recognize the fact that assessment scores are NOT federally mandated for graduation, I understand that eliminating all "high stakes" consequences may be politically impossible. With that said, in the interest of increasing instruction time and promoting student academic development and creativity, as well as the development of skills associated with true college and career readiness, I recommend the following...

The Graduation Requirement should be structured to promote opportunities and inclusivity, not prevent graduation.

1) Ohio's assessment system should be brought in line with federal minimums. At the high school level, the state will administer 1 Math test, 1 ELA test, and a test in Science. For what it's worth, I find a Social Studies assessment acceptable as well, even though it is out of line with federal mandates. I am an American History teacher, and I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea that I'm in this out of some self interest.

2) If high stakes are associated with the assessments, they should not be used as a determinant for graduation until 3-5 years of data can be studied to prevent a similar problem.

3) Maintain a points system to graduation where students may acquire additional points completely unrelated to assessments. These should include those currently being championed by the Workgroup, but also include internships, participation in academic clubs and student government, arts education, athletics, and otherwise. College and workplace skills are developed in these venues, so they should be recognized as such if the system is truly designed to promote readiness. Perhaps limit the amount of potential points through these activities. 

As a side note, any business taking any form of tax relief from the state or municipalities should be required to establish internships for Ohio students.

4) The ACT should be eliminated as a potential path to graduation. The state of Ohio should offer (not mandate) one free attempt for all Ohio's juniors. Not all of Ohio's students anticipate attending a four year college, nor should they be expected to, which makes this requirement completely inappropriate for sizable portions of Ohio's students.

5) The state shall provide a system to track student progress toward graduation, or provide resources to local districts including, but not limited to additional counselors, and career advisors to manage what has become an unmanageable amount of data. Funding can be drawn from that saved in the elimination and minimization of assessments. Other funding diverted from the assessment system should be returned to Ohio's public schools in the interest of shrinking class sizes, promoting arts education at all levels, and creating programs that encourage students to pursue academic interests.

A Manifesto in Response to Tom's Tired Rhetoric.

 

I'd like to believe that I take a philosophical approach to any success I may have had as an educator. My students are ultimately the best judge of any of that. I believe that I am a teacher who is constantly seeking improvement, and on a good day can help students facilitate connections to content, develop their skepticism and critical thinking skills, as well as encourage them to expand their worldview and develop the skills necessary to work with diverse populations. Having been at the business of education for 20 years, I believe I know some things. Not all things, but some things. Education is a collaborative effort, a community undertaking, and should be treated as such. I am interested in developing as a teacher through this collaboration in order to help develop the potential of my students.

However, I will not have a man with negligible experience in education lecture me on what is best for students. Nor will I accept a lecture on hard work from a guy whose current job exists because of nepotism (the family business), and his last job was acquired because his family made sizable donations to political campaigns, and the governor (state school board).

I know, I thought we were rid of him as well, but it appears that former Ohio School Board President Tom Gunlock hasn't had enough of hearing himself spout off about things he hardly understands. Earlier this week, he graced the pages of the Dayton Daily News with an op-ed riddled with the same bullshit argument about his crusade to increase rigor through assessments.

As I've said before, the fundamental difference between myself and Gunlock's opinions on the matter of graduation lie in his belief that the only measure of value in a student's education is a score on a standardized test, while I believe education is the sum of the process of a student's education, their coursework K-12, grades, projects, interactions, involvement, collaboration, etc. In other words, the entire experience.

In this "new" op-ed, Gunlock takes us on a tour of the same shit he said before he quit the school board, a host of tired talking points and baseless claims utterly devoid of credible support. Here's some of my favorites...

Tom Gunlock: "The dirty little secret, though, is that the Ohio Graduation Test is a test of eighth-grade knowledge." 

Testing Window: Something is not a dirty little secret if you keep talking about it. It also isn't true just because you keep saying it.

Those who've paid attention have heard this one used before by Gunlock, Todd Jones, and Governor Kasich as the lead-in for why they, and other champions of rigor, decided to change Ohio's standards to better prepare students. The second part of this myth is typically that they did so without the support of educators who, in their minds, are lazy, shiftless, selfish bastards.

I asked Mr. Gunlock for evidence to corroborate his grade 8 claim after he sent me a nasty email in January , but he failed to respond with any data to document his claims regarding the developmental level of the OGT.

TG: "In 2010, Ohio set in motion higher standards, and the expectation that in order to earn a diploma students should demonstrate at least a 10th-grade level of learning to earn a diploma. Our districts and schools have known this for six years..." 

TW: The state is always right, however awkward the phrasing, the problem is teachers.

It's funny because we did a lot of Professional Development in my district beginning in 2010 to adjust our curriculum to meet the standards, and when we asked how the assessments would look, nobody knew, not even ODE people. Every six months we asked, and every six months nobody knew. We knew the adjusted standards, and worked accordingly, but have had no indication of how the assessments would be constructed, graded, etcetera, which is to say, we didn't know shit.

Again, Gunlock provides no documentation regarding how he knows this is a "10th grade level of learning." He is a Centerville businessman who spent 6 years on the state board, so apparently he anticipates we will blindly believe. Unfortunately, most people know that the cut scores are set after the tests are taken, and other members of the board have admitted that the process has little to do with assuring any measure or "level" of learning, but rather arbitrarily assures that a certain percentage of students pass, and a certain percentage fail.

TG: "What happens if we decide it’s just too hard? Businesses will continue to struggle to find workers with the knowledge and skills to do the increasingly complex work that represents the new normal."

TW: More smoke and mirrors, no legitimate research or data.

Gunlock and his peers insist that the demand for this increase in standardized testing comes from businesses who lament the caliber of student arriving on their doorstep with an Ohio diploma. Two problems... First, I have never heard from a business leader, chamber of commerce, or otherwise that what we need in Ohio is more standardized tests to assure a qualified workforce. Second, as I have indicated often  including in frequent correspondence to Mr. Gunlock and other school board members, the skills needed for success in the workforce (and college) are generally not items that can be measured on a standardized test.

OK, three problems. If the issue is, in fact, the necessity to pursue further education outside of high school in order to qualify for career quality jobs, as is suggested elsewhere in the op-ed, then how on earth is preventing graduation with tests accomplishing that goal. Without a diploma, a student will find it impossible to get student loans, and terribly difficult to pursue skills-based, or vocational training.

TG: "At the other end of the spectrum are districts that say, “The sky is falling! Forty percent of our students won’t graduate... They’ll go on to tell you that the tests are too hard, and they simply don’t know what to do to help students reach these higher levels. They might even suggest that students simply can’t reach this higher bar. Not everybody needs algebra, right? Who really uses geometry, or biology?"

TW: Nobody is saying those things, Tom, except that 40% won't graduate in some districts because it's true.

Now, in the interest of full disclosure, prior to this quote, Gunlock did point out that some districts have not suggested a problem. Gunlock loves those guys because they shut the hell up, don't disagree with him, and he assumes they're all on board (not necessarily true), and will simply put their shoulder to the wheel, nose to the grindstone, and pull themselves and their students up by their bootstraps in the greatest, grittiest story of Ohio accomplishment since the son of a mailman got elected governor, and started scouring his list of donors for potential school board members.

Unfortunately, I fall into the category of those "at the other end" who would dare to disagree with Mr. Gunlock's wholehearted belief that the only measure of value in education is a score on a standardized test. I don't believe that test performance necessarily indicates some "higher level." The thing is, I disagree because I have worked in education for awhile now, taught in a tested subject through the duration of the OGT, and from what I have seen, the proof of the value of a student's education comes through a million moments, most of them far from the context of a single test.

With that in mind, as a professional, I will maintain the mentality that I am improving as a teacher, and seek to better myself in the interest of my students. I will not, however, simply swallow whatever shit system is handed down by those in power. I will continue to advocate for something more humane, an educational process interested in developing human potential, not stifling it through punishments associated with standardized tests. I will do so despite the ire of those whose position or wealth provide them with a misguided sense of superiority over me, my students, and my fellow teachers.

We're Sick With Committees Around Here. Will Somebody Do Something Already.

 

"I said a hip hop. The hippie, the hippie, to the hip, hip, hop, and these tests don't stop." Senator Lehner introduced a committee to study Ohio Assessments in 2015, and now Superintendent DeMaria wants his own Committee to do the same damn thing.

In some sort of perfect storm of ESSA resistance, outspoken superintendents, courageous parents, panicked high school juniors, pissed off teachers, emboldened legislators, and a backpedalling superintendent, everyone is talking about testing. 

As you may have heard me say before, "Right on!"

This week in a presentation to the Senate Education Committee and the State School Board, Superintendent DeMaria announced a combined analysis of assessments in Ohio to be conducted by the existing Graduation Workgroup, a committee analyzing teacher evaluations, and yet another brand new Advisory Committee on Assessments (I know, just pretend we didn't already do this in 2015 with Senator Lehner). That's a wealth of committee work. Alas, despite my longtime concern and study regarding the graduation problem, I have not been invited to advise on assessments. Perhaps, my insistence on disagreeing with the Superintendent on these issues hasn't helped my cause. His tendency to walk a line somewhere between the diplomatic position of listening to stakeholders, while simultaneously deflecting the blame onto and completely ignoring those parties is simultaneously reassuring and unsettling. I'm a wreck just trying to figure out what (or whose) agenda this guy is pursuing.

For example, along with announcing this week the delay until September of the submission of our ESSA plan, which was both welcome and ridiculously unexpected news, the Superintendent tried to deflect responsibility from the weight of state testing onto local districts. In the Plain Dealer's article on the subject, DeMaria tactfully admitted that while districts are responsible for two-thirds of standardized testing, these are usually administered to comply with state mandates regarding teacher evaluation, or to give districts data to inform instruction in order to assure student progress on state benchmarks. What the hell, man, our relationship is spinning me in circles.

I fear that this foreshadows a return to the same old, tired policy mandates that demand a reduction in local assessments with no change at the state level. Not only is this a violation of the great rallying cry of "local control" embraced by many, it is counterproductive. After all, if the state were to eliminate all high stakes from assessments (3rd grade, grad requirement, OTES, A-F report card), if not all assessments above federal minimums, then the two-thirds of assessments the Superintendent is so concerned about at the local level would become unnecessary and be eliminated immediately or gradually diminish. As teacher created and district tests are the only ones that provide any meaningful data, it would be absurd to adopt a policy that limits local assessments in favor of state tests. (Now that I see it in print, I fully understand why I'm not invited onto these committees)

More problematic than the Superintendent's above comments is my understanding that he suggested in a meeting of the Senate Education Committee that if you were to look at a student's time spent testing, as opposed to the testing window or time allotted, then the assessments are reasonable. We all realize every kid isn't testing every day of the window, and still stakeholders argue the assessments are excessive. And if we're talking about the window allotted for a test, with all due respect to Mr. DeMaria, in my school, in most cases, a student who finishes an assessment early still sits for the entire window. This is designed to encourage kids to give their best thoughtful effort (because any number of high stakes are tied to the damn assessment). In other words, "don't race through and give me the finger as you leave. I understand, but we can't have that. Try your hardest" This says nothing of the time spent in standardized test specific review that detracts from a student's education. What is more alarming than the Superintendent quibbling about time versus windows, is that 15,000 stakeholders, parents, teachers, principals, counselors, and local superintendents are reporting excessive assessment based upon the reality they see in Ohio's schools, and DeMaria is responding with excuses and technicalities to deflect and avoid responsibility.

As a high school teacher, what I find more alarming is that, in the same meeting, the Superintendent insisted that he likes the Graduation Requirement because it provides "flexibility" for schools and students. This is consistent with O.D.E. rhetoric, but contrary to available information. Vocational schools are reporting that the WorkKeys is an assessment appropriate for, and available to, terribly few students. Furthermore, the students who are finding success within the state's 18 point assessment system are the same students likely to achieve remediation free scores on the ACT (which are scores set higher than the state average). If this system is flexible, it is only flexible for a homogeneous group of traditional students who are good test takers. As anyone with experience in education will tell you, this is not in any way representative of all students. So, contrary to the message of Superintendent DeMaria, the Graduation Requirement is NOT "flexible," as evidenced by the 35,000 juniors currently in danger of not receiving a diploma.

Thankfully my week hasn't only been filled with the Superintendent and his doublespeak. Our friend Jeanne Melvin of Public Education Partners beautifully condensed the issues with the graduation problem in this graphic...

 

Also, thanks to Representative Teresa Fedor who announced that she's including an amendment in the budget bill that would provide a safe-harbor for students affected by the Graduation Problem in the class of 2018. I hope you agree that this would be an excellent move as legislators craft a well informed, long term solution to the issue. In her words, "The adults got it wrong, not our children."

 

TAKE ACTION: Use Jeanne's info above, and contact your legislators in support of Rep Fedor's Amendments, as well as a long term solution that does the following...

1) Reduces the reliance upon standardized tests as a requirement for graduation.

2) If the testing system must remain, lowers the overall points necessary to graduate AND

3) Provides additional ways to earn the points necessary for graduation.

Here's links to the contact info...

Directory for the Ohio House

Directory for the Ohio Senate

Hey Hey Paolo. Write the Super, and some legislators too.

 Paolo, Peggy, and Andy would like to hear from you.

Having completed the state's survey on the ESSA draft proposal last weekend, a process that took me approximately an hour (that I will never get back), I've been stuck on an odd piece of the state's explanation from one of the segments labeled What we heard. It reads as follows...

"Strategically reduce tests where it makes sense to do so. While the state has reduced the amount of time that students spend taking tests--down by approximately 50% from 2014 to 2016--stakeholders expressed an interest in continuing to explore a further reduction in testing."

What they're referencing, of course, is the elimination of PARCC as a test vendor in Ohio, and elimination of the double testing window which had students take part one of a content area test in February and part two in April. While this was certainly progress, considering the stupefying level of testing that the two windows bring, it has been oversold as a reduction in testing.

This week, my wife wanted to wrap her mind around the actual change in testing from 2014 through 2016. The state's quote above, and the congratulatory discussion of the issue by legislators, references the change from PARCC to AIR, but this is misleading. Remember, state testing in 2014 also included spring OAA's and OGT's. My wife's compilation of actual changes in the time spent testing over this time period for all grades can be found here.

What she formalized is what we've known all along, that in every grade there has been an increase in the time spent testing from the OAA/OGT era (spring 2014 and prior) to the present. And while the state's numbers aren't exactly lying, they aren't necessarily the whole truth either. Legislators and the ODE only reduced testing as it relates to eliminating an awful system that they created, while not actually reducing testing.

Nowhere is this more alarming than at the high school level. Under the Ohio Graduation Tests (up to spring 2014), students were required to take part in 12.5 hours of testing, assuming there were no retakes necessary. Under the current system, again assuming no retakes, students are required to participate in 25.5 hours of testing. I'm not a mathematician, but even I can figure out that this is NOT "down by approximately 50%." We can also assume that the number of retakes has risen since the OGT because of the inappropriateness of the tests, and subsequent problems with the convoluted structure of the graduation requirement.

Perhaps I should put this in mathematical terms for those who only respond to a data driven argument.

Test Hours under the current graduation assessments: 25.5

Minus Test Hours required by the OGT: 12.5

Plus Number of Hours Spent on Retakes: 3(# of tests retaken)

Equals: an inordinate number of hours spent testing to satisfy an assessment system that measures neither career nor college readiness as claimed by Superintendent Paolo DeMaria, the Ohio Department of Eduction, and other advocates of the system.

(Alternate correct answer: Bullshit.)

The problem is, not many people outside of the ODE are advocates of a system that places such an inordinate amount of importance on assessment results. That's why I responded to the survey on the draft proposal. Stakeholders asked for changes. None were given. If you've yet to give your feedback, please do so here. (It might be helpful to refer to the "alternate ESSA plan" link below prior to completing this survey)

My wife and I went to hear Olmsted Falls Superintendent Dr. Jim Lloyd speak at a forum in Avon on Wednesday in support of an alternate ESSA plan championed by Lorain County and western Cuyahoga County Superintendents. Their plan involves a reasonable response that takes into consideration the feedback of the 15,000 participants in the ODE's research.

Beyond the good feeling of knowing that there are people out there who believe the same things you do, what I took from that meeting was the need to encourage DeMaria and state legislators to act in a manner that is responsive to their constituent's demands. Many legislators have admitted that it was the massive amount of correspondence they received that led them to abandon PARCC and the two window testing system. They need to know that the current assessment system, as it relates to high school graduation and otherwise, is inappropriate. A great start would be putting off Ohio's submission deadline for our ESSA plan until September, which would allow time for appropriate revision.

Here is a link to the contact info for Superintendent DeMaria, the state school board, as well as the House and Senate Education Committees.

I contacted my Senator and Rep, which I do often, as well as the Superintendent and the chairs of the House and Senate Education Committees, Rep Andy Brenner and Senator Peggy Lehner respectively. Check out my emails below, and write someone. Then encourage your friends to do so.

My email to the State Super...

State Superintendent DeMaria,

According to the statewide opposition to the Ohio draft ESSA plan because of its lack of an adequate response to stakeholder input, I hope you will consider recommending putting off Ohio's submission until the September deadline. This will allow you and the ODE the opportunity to do what is right by Ohio's students, parents, teachers, and administrators by crafting a plan that takes advantage of ESSA's flexibility and the opportunity to reduce the state's assessments and involvement in decisions that should be made at the local level.

As a parent and teacher, I thank you for your consideration.

Matthew T. Jablonski

My email to the Committee Chairs...

Please consider being responsive to the input of stakeholders for Ohio's ESSA plan, and encouraging Superintendent DeMaria and the ODE to put off our submission of a plan until September. ESSA offers the opportunity for an increase in local control, and the current draft plan moves in the opposite direction. The public has demanded a decrease in standardized testing and the punitive measures associated with that system. You were a part of the legislative leadership that put an end to the wildly unpopular PARCC testing, and I hope that you will champion further reductions. 

While the elimination of PARCC is largely seen as a victory, the testing system is still excessive. Its impact is felt nearly every day of the year where I teach at Elyria High School. We frequently spend weeks without access to counselors, gymnasiums, computer labs, and the media center due to test administration. Under the OGT, without retakes, students sat for 12.5 hours of testing in their high school career. Under the current system, again before retakes, students are required to sit for 25.5 hours of testing. As you likely know, far more retakes have become the norm because of the problems associated with the high school assessments as they relate to the graduation requirements. A legislative solution is going to be necessary to remedy the pending graduation crisis. I encourage you to seek a solution that embraces ESSA's intent to minimize our reliance on standardized tests. In my experience, they offer terribly little in the way of meaningful data, and do nothing to measure the soft skills that are more important to career and college readiness like collaboration, critical thinking, creativity, and communication.

On a basic level, we could say that ESSA requires 17 assessments and Ohio administers 24, so let's start minimization from there. I would hope that as the legislature has embraced public sentiment regarding testing before, you would again, and further examine ways to diminish the intrusive nature of a punitive system with minimal benefit. 

Please let me know how you see the remedy of these issues going forward.

Thank you for your consideration, and service to Ohio. If there is anything that I can do to offer assistance, please let me know.

Matthew T. Jablonski

"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. 

Ohio's ESSA Draft Plan is not what I heard suggested at my Stakeholder Meeting.

 Superintendent DeMaria listens to input on ESSA.

Having read the Ohio Department of Education's draft plan to comply with the Every Student Succeds Act, I have become convinced of what I had feared all along. The ODE and its esteemed leader, State Superintendent Paolo DeMaria, had little intention of actually acting upon the suggestions of education stakeholders when crafting Ohio's plan. I guess ESSA said they only had to "engage" the public, not actually listen. Their documents celebrate their compliance, indicating that they have "engaged 15,000 Ohioans in the development of the draft." What is seemingly between the lines then is this: then we did whatever the hell we wanted to, which is very little.

According to their expansive public engagement, Philanthropy Ohio, the organization tasked with making sense of the input reported in its "white paper," "All sectors of the community—parents, families, teachers, administrators and community members—raised concerns about the assessments." 

When I skimmed the document last night and became blind with rage that they'd decided not to reduce testing to federal minimums, nor revise punitive measures related to testing like the report card, teacher evaluation, and the 3rd grade guarantee, I thought perhaps I'd read it wrong. Later, my wife directed me to Patrick O'Donnell's article in the Plain Dealer entitled, "Ohio proposes no testing cuts in its ESSA plan -- yet -- despite feedback pleading for them," and my impressions were confirmed. According to the article, both senior ODE policy advisor Colleen Grady and Philanthropy Ohio spokesperson Lisa Gray indicated that the chief concern of all stakeholders was too much time consuming testing.

The ODE's response...

One of the main themes communicated during stakeholder engagement was the need for stability in the state testing system, as Ohio has changed tests two times in the last three years. Accordingly, Ohio is proposing to maintain its current state assessment system. However, the Department will work in partnership with Governor Kasich and the General Assembly to re-examine any state assessments not required under ESSA – an area in which Ohio has already made significant progress. Thanks to the leadership of the Ohio General Assembly, administration time for state assessments was reduced by 50 percent between 2014-2015 and 2015-2016. 

Obviously, the first problem with this is that it fails to address what an ODE spokesperson, as well as a representative from Philanthropy Ohio (who organized and compiled public input) classified as the top concern statewide.

Problem number two is the stated desire to work with Kasich and the General Assembly. Anyone who has had opportunity to listen to a politician speak should realize that this is classic spin...

Politician: "We are looking into that issue."

Translation: "We are going to create a process to appear as if we care about your concerns, undertake a charade like establishing a Workgroup to placate the most vocal, and in the end hope you forget about the issue because we had no intention of doing anything."

Having been regularly bullshitted by people in positions of power, I don't even see that as the biggest problem. My biggest gripe is the congratulatory language at the end. Let's be clear. The General Assembly reduced the testing time because they had created an unmanageable system to begin with. If I punch you in the face, and then get you some ice for the swelling, should I be congratulated as a humanitarian? Furthermore, all the General Assembly did was eliminate the early testing window. Let's not forget that the number one concern of stakeholders, as indicated after that change took place, is still too much testing.

Earlier this year, I overheard an administrator at my school suggest that 'we don't have a small gym anymore, we have a large testing room.' With thousands of students, two school year retake sessions, combined with first time tests (the mind reels at the number of individual assessments administered), I'd add a few things. We don't have technologies, we have testing devices. We don't have teachers, we have test prep specialists. We don't have counselors to help transition students to college and career, we have test administrators. Feel free to add a few of your own.

We also don't have less testing. This year all Ohio high schools are required to administer the ACT to all juniors regardless of capability, intention of going to college, or need for the test. Also, as I understand it, there is going to be an additional extended essay added to English assessments this year. This development has driven my school to have the ELA test completed in two testing sessions. Yes, the General Assembly ditched PARCC and a testing window, but the tests aren't really markedly shorter. Let's not pat ourselves on the back just yet. I would encourage the Superintendent and the ODE, as they work with Governor Kasich and the General Assembly to "re-examine" the assessment system, to look at the reality of the system, and think about investigating how this functions practically in an actual high school (it doesn't), as opposed to looking at this as just a number of tests.

A word about the Graduation Requirement...

I would be remiss if I didn't mention the state's draft plan mention of the Graduation Requirement. The language is as follows...

Any discussion about high school level end-of-course exams will be done in coordination with the State Board of Education’s current reexamination of Ohio’s graduation requirements. 

The Graduation Workgroup got down to business on Wednesday, introducing one another, and seeing a presentation from the Georgetown Center on Education and the Workforce. From what I've seen of the presentation and corresponding research, most of the skills necessary for college and career success are NOT things that can be measured by standardized tests. This would seem to limit the importance of using said tests as a requirement for graduation. I'm guessing those in power at the ODE see things differently. 

One individual who attended the meeting indicated that Superintendent DeMaria said that the tests are essentially off-limits for discussion in the Workgroup. I would be interested in having that verified by other attendees. If it is true, then DeMaria and the ODE are clearly involved in some sort of shell game regarding state assessments. After all, if the ESSA report, signed by DeMaria, says the discussion of end-of-course exams is occurring within the board's investigation, which is being undertaken by the Workgroup, but the Workgroup has been forbidden by DeMaria to discuss the tests, then nothing is being addressed with regard to the assessment system at the high school level. I would also question how adequately the Workgroup is going to be able to address the graduation problem without discussing the root of the problem.

The Superintendent wants to hear from us...again.

When Paolo DeMaria took over as Superintendent, he told Ohioans he wanted to hear from them. As reported in the Plain Dealer at the time, "I want to listen- to get a clear sense of what's happening out here," DeMaria said. "Share with us. Communicate with us, Tell us what we're doing well, what we're not doing well." He has consistently positioned himself as the benevolent bearded face of the ODE, ready to listen, prepared to take action to do what is right for Ohio's kids.

Unfortunately, he's more often proving to be inclined to fall in line with a partisan agenda that features test and punish, attacks on public schools and their teachers, and privatization, just like his predecessors. His recent inaction related to the takeover of the Lorain schools is the best evidence so far. This ESSA draft plan, and its utter lack of a plan to fix the primary issue indicated by Ohioans when they stepped up to share with Mr. DeMaria seems, unfortunately, to be another example.

It's not over, though. True to form, Superintendent DeMaria and the Ohio Department of Education have opened up a period of time to comment on the state's ESSA plan. That's right, they want to hear what we think  The full plan will be released in February, and the window to weigh-in will be open until March 6th. In theory, this feedback will be used to shape the final Ohio plan to comply with ESSA.

Let's hope they prove more capable of responding to stakeholder input than they have thus far.