Hey Ohio, They Are Not Standards Written With Teacher Input If You Completely Ignore the Input.

Why bother? I’ve been asking this question all afternoon and I’m not even sure who I’m asking.

If I’m asking the Ohio Department of Education, the question is, “Why bother asking for teacher, and other stakeholder feedback if you’re not going to use it?” If I’m asking myself, the question is “Why bother respond when they ask for feedback?

I recently responded to feedback, for the 2nd time, regarding the Ohio Learning Standards in Social Studies for American History, the course I teach. When we saw the results for the first round of feedback on the Standards, the ODE reported that nearly ALL those who participated indicated that the inclusion of the Historic Documents in the American History curriculum is redundant, they’re also taught in 8th grade and American Government, and inappropriate in the curriculum. The documents (Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Federalist & Anti-Federalist Papers, Northwest Ordinance, Bill of Rights, off the top of my head) ALL fall well outside the time frame of the American History course, 1865-present.

So, after the first round of stakeholder input, the ODE indicated that consensus dictated the removal of the Historic Documents for American History. My colleagues and I cheered the logic and wisdom of such a system that responds proactively to teacher input. 

Today when I returned to weigh in on another round of the revision, the Historic Documents remained. What fresh hell is this? Despite professional expert testimony to the contrary, the docs are still there, just as redundant and inappropriate as before, but now further tainted by deception.

Any educator, and many non-educators, can see why this would make no sense. I’ve explained it above... it’s repetitive and utterly out of academic context. Students learn for the long term by making connections. They connect new content to other content and existing schema, their prior knowledge. If the new content, in this case the Documents, is remote from the course of study, then the ability to facilitate these connections diminishes. 

Furthermore, if the ODE and legislature are so very concerned about students being college and career ready, then why on earth would we teach the same damn material over and over?

The reason, of course, is that Senator Larry Obhof believes that he has taken part in a supreme act of patriotism having passed the so-called “Founding Fathers Bill” which requires the redundant teaching of the documents. Don’t get me wrong, I do not question the good Senator’s patriotism, nor do I object to the documents being taught (where appropriate in the Social Studies curriculum). What I do object to is the refusal of legislators, Senator Obhof among them, who refuse to listen to experts in the field when making decisions that impact said field.

And in this case, the refusal of the Ohio Department of Education and Superintendent Paolo DeMaria to champion a logical and correct curricular adjustment recommended by experts in the field. Again, their own report on the analysis of the American History Standards indicated that the documents were the biggest issue in need of attention.

I participated in the ESSA stakeholder meetings, and then watched DeMaria and the ODE attempt to submit a plan that did not reflect the recommendations of those groups. Only public outcry changed that scenario. Now I’m seeing the same sort of chicanery in seeking feedback on State Standards. It makes me wonder what similar bullshit went down with educator recommendations for the Math and ELA Standards.

As DeMaria travels the state claiming to be listening to students, teachers, administrators, and others from Cleveland to Columbus and elsewhere, I’m left to wonder whether the glad handing consensus builder is genuine. I’ve had conversations with people who like DeMaria, believe that he’s listening, changing the culture at the ODE toward something positive. I met him once briefly, and he was pleasant enough. I want to believe we’re on the same team, but these circumstances are problematic. 

The Ohio Department of Education is supposed to provide support for educators statewide. They should be presenting the legitimate feedback-based changes to the state board. In this case, because for some absurd reason the legislature decided to write specific curriculum into law, the ODE and DeMaria need to be influencing legislators to act on behalf of the experts in the field. 

Instead they figured to pass this pile of shit “revision” off as if nothing happened.

If you didn’t plan to do your job, then why bother asking for input?

Rethinking Graduation. Assessments or Opportunities?

I was encouraged this week to read story after story regarding the Ohio State School Board’s rethinking of the Graduation Requirement. As it stands, in the opinion of the board (and many in education), far too much weight is being placed on a student’s success on standardized tests. The Cleveland Plain Dealer has reported on the new vision the board is in the process of developing for Ohio students. The image above is taken from their article, and encapsulates the attributes that the board believes students should be developing through their high school career. 

Their idea is to extend the 2018 pathways to the classes of 2019 & 2020, while developing a new approach. This builds in the time for a meaningful analysis of any new plan, along with a period of public input, and development of legislation. As long as the 2018 additional pathways function as they are intended, the ODE has (to my knowledge) still done no analysis to this end, the state board might be onto something.

Under the current system, through an arbitrary 18 points earned from 7 standardized tests, we are attempting to measure only a few of the board’s attributes, at best, and likely not measuring any of them very well. What the board is proposing is that we take a far more holistic view of a child’s education. 

This concept might seem revolutionary considering the fact that we in education have shepherded several generations through a slaughterhouse of an assessment system in the name of rigor and reform. However, if we were to ask any given teacher why they got into the business, I’d imagine that many would argue that it was to instill some of the above qualities in their students. If we were to ask students about the benefits of school, or to consider our own careers as students, we would probably be unlikely to hear opinions that reflect one’s performance on an assessment as vital to future success.

The value of my own K-12 education, with hindsight, had little to do with the acquisition of specific content knowledge, or even content related skills. To be fair it is nice to be able to read & write, balance a bank account and figure a tip, but I value the other experiences far more. Being encouraged to be creative, for example, or to internalize the satisfaction of service to my community has brought me more joy and led me to teaching. Having experienced content or situations that provoked compassion and empathy, or a desire for action have also been a driving force in my life.

Having had opportunities to develop oral communication skills, despite spending a great deal of time in my own head, has enabled me to do what I do as an educator, and hopefully convey through example that being awkward is perfectly acceptable.

None of these attributes related to my education in which I place so much value are things that can be accurately assessed on a standardized test. And therein lies the difficulty. When many of the media outlets reporting on the board’s plan refer to this as a “softening” of the Graduation Requirement, they’re missing the point. The value of a child’s education goes well beyond their performance on an assessment, but for so long we’ve allowed a false narrative of failure in our schools to create a demand for a solution. Politicians want a business model, an algorithm, a formula that will guarantee student success.

18 Points from 7 Assessments does not guarantee success. Education is a human endeavor, so cannot be boiled down to an equation, much as that might simplify things. Providing students with opportunities can facilitate success, and if the state board’s “attributes” promote opportunity, then we will have done well by these kids. If we use this opportunity to create more assessments to collect data points on grit, or creativity, or otherwise, then we will be, once again, missing the point.

I’d prefer to think that those of us in education will work to assure that this opportunity is not lost. I’d prefer to go with the spin placed on the board’s work by the Lorain Morning Journal, and say that they are attempting to extend flexibility when it comes to graduation. Let’s strengthen the Graduation Requirement by extending this flexibility and providing opportunities.

This Year’s Resolutions

Be more humane.

The process of determining resolutions for the New Year is difficult at best and impossible at worst. After all, if I were to backfit my resolutions as an educator into Ohio’s existing social, economic, and educational system, then I’d have to go with something like the following...

Resolution One: I will believe that education is the great equalizer.

Resolution Two: I will pretend that policy-makers are listening chiefly to educators when developing education policy.

Resolution Three: I will attempt to find value in data from state assessments.

Alright, alright, that’s enough. I have tried all of these before, and it’s utter nonsense. 

Problem One: There is, as yet, no great equalizer. School as a mechanism for upward mobility is a part of the same mythology as Horatio Alger, hard work, bootstraps, rags to riches bullshit whose very dangerous flip-side demonizes the poor for being poor, as if their poverty is simply a product of not having taken advantage of opportunities or worked hard enough. 

Problem Two: Despite a depiction of the Superintendent’s many Workgroups, or the Ohio Department of Education, or some legislators touting their collaboration with teachers on new legislation, I have yet to read any legislation that provides opportunities and not punishment for students, teachers and schools. Representatives from the Fordham Institute are not teachers, and neither are analysts from the American Institutes for Research, nor are veterans of Teach for America (I’m looking at you Mr. Hardy). The entities from the state should also not defer to educators who are too frightened of their perceived “superiors” to stand up for what is right.

Problem Three: Regarding value in assessment data... the data is negligible and its value is laughable, especially when compared to the information that I gain on a daily basis in my classroom. As has been illustrated time and again, the information we gain from state assessments portrays a wonderful correlation with economic status. Nothing more.

It struck me this morning that our bizarre judgement of students, teachers, and schools by this method is a lot like the judgement kids levy on one another in middle and high school. They’re checking off who’s got the right clothes and shoes and phone, and if you don’t, then you lose. It’s the same bullshit valuation of character based on haves and have nots that existed when I was in school, and I guess kids will be kids except that when it comes to evaluating students, teachers, and schools, it’s not kids.

We’ve got a state capital riddled with education lobbyists and bureaucrats with a short sighted middle school mentality. Their assessment system is the hand they can’t see in front of their face. If these assessments measure economics, which we know they do, then aren't the State Superintendent and the Ohio Department of Education just seeing who’s got the right clothes and shoes and phones? 

Perhaps this is an oversimplification, but as I sit here reflecting upon the end of 2017 and what I might do differently going forward, I can’t help but think that I’m falling prey to the relentless attacks on my profession by those who would seek to blame societal issues on my colleagues and I, rather than look in the mirror.

Teachers like myself, and the kids we teach are portrayed as failures within this system, and the bureaucrats would have us blame ourselves as if we haven’t worked hard enough and seized our opportunities. If we’d only do that under the informed guise of their valuable data, then achievement will trickle down like a better economic situation.

Bullshit.

That’s why I’m not taking on an education based New Year’s Resolution. Lord knows I’ve done plenty of goal setting as it is through my Professional Development Plan, the Ohio Teacher Evaluation System, my Teacher Based Team, and otherwise.

I’m going with one Resolution this year and I’d like to suggest that educators and policy-makers consider this one as well when thinking about curriculum and lessons, assessments and evaluation. It is this...

Be more humane.

The Gift of Hope.

I just overheard this kid say something like, “Man, I didn’t do all this work for 12 years for them not to let me graduate.” He’d just retaken some tests and was clearly overcome and agitated by the prospect of not receiving a diploma. I’ve eliminated a few four letter words that peppered the above quote.

I didn’t know the dude. He was a student venting to his friends in the hall. In a school of 2000, give or take, I really don’t know many people. Even if I had known him, I probably wouldn’t have said anything because as unwritten policy I try not to get involved in student hallway conversations. After all, high school is difficult enough without your square History teacher horning in on your business.

There are, however, a few things that kid should know.

First, “Yes they will.” That is, you have indeed worked for 12 years and will not be permitted to graduate due to a test score. This is the reality. It is not right. The assessments provide no indication of your potential for success going forward, but policy-makers (many of which have zero education experience) have established the system with which we must comply.

Second, there is hope. Seemingly overwhelmed by the holiday spirit, the State School Board this month has said it will recommend the same pathways granted to the class of 2018 be extended to the classes of 2019 and 2020. Their vote to make the recommendation will be made next month. While several board members weighed in positively on this temporary solution and the prospect of something long term, including Stephanie Dodd and Rebecca Vazquez-Skillings, I was most heartened by a quote from Meryl Johnson who, according to the Plain Dealer, said,

"I'm not in favor of standardized tests. I'm not in favor of high stakes testing. It disenfranchises a huge amount of students in Ohio."

I agree wholeheartedly, and if I were a betting man, I’d wager that a majority of education professionals in the state, and nationwide, would agree.

Unfortunately for all of us, policy-makers tend to disagree.

As for that student and his friends, regarding the extension of the 2018 pathways, this sounds like good news except that the Ohio Department of Education has yet to conduct any research on how many students will benefit from the 2018 assistance. They have said that they’ll talk to some districts about it. One would think they’d be a bit more concerned about the impact of their “solution.” Apparently not enough to see if it will work. As it stands we’ll amble blindly forward hoping for the best.

Also cranking up the holiday cheer for concerned high schoolers was Rep Andrew Brenner, who indicated that a bill related to a long term solution to the graduation problem will be presented to the House Education Committee, of which he is the Chair, very soon. While I am eager to hear more, and desperately want to be optimistic, Rep Brenner has previously denied the existence of a graduation problem. He was of the same mindset as the Ghosts of State School Board’s Past, Jones and Gunlock, who believed that diplomas are meaningless without a standardized test score or 7 to go along with them.

As a teacher, I tend to believe the opposite, that the standardized tests actually decrease the value of a child’s education by narrowing the curriculum and focus. Of course the ODE remedies this by demanding differentiation and personalized learning while narrowing the curriculum and focus through high-stakes testing. Their gift to all of us this season and all year long is unabashed hypocrisy.

They’re the ones who disagree with the school board’s other recent tear jerker of an announcement, that they believe standardized tests in Ohio need to be cut further. Yes, Superintendent DeMaria and the ODE have championed minimal cuts in an attempt to appease stakeholders, but they resist the ultimate cut, reducing state assessments to federal minimums, which is really what we should be discussing. They still argue that the “data” that we glean from these assessments is far too valuable to live without. I think they hand pick teachers who agree with them (or are hoping for a sweet ODE gig in the future), and have those folks present to the State School Board on the merits of the existing assessment system. Despite all “expert” testimony to the contrary, I’ll double down and suggest that most educators could effectively do their job without the aforementioned data.

The very organization who makes their living analyzing assessment data (unless it has to do with graduation, see above), is deciding whether or not we should maintain the same level of assessments. This is madness. It’s like allowing millionaires to decide whether or not millionaires should get a tax cut. 

Ask educators in the field what should happen with the grad requirement and assessments overall. Ask all of them, not a chosen few. Ask students. Ask parents. Ask the kid that I mentioned earlier. I’m sure he’s got a few words he’d like to share on the subject.

I believe that the State School Board and a few legislators have begun to listen. They’ve given me the gift of hope.

Remediation & Belief

On Monday I finish the American History remediation course for the fall. Retakes are this coming week. I’ve spent the last 8 weeks teaching a year-long course, as well as modeling analytical (and other) test taking skills and strategies. In our last meeting, I’ll teach the entire course one more time as a refresher. I’ve thought about recording this last session to underscore the utter absurdity in attempting to remedy issues on an assessment with short-term courses. Where we should be developing meaningful opportunities for students to connect to content in order to make sense of their place in the world, we instead make the goal a 400 on an End of Course assessment, whatever that means.

On the one hand we want students to explore academically to discover interests and talents so they can make an informed career decision, and on the other we are asking for success on a standardized assessment. Remediation exemplifies the painfully obvious contradiction in these two goals. It’s role in the process requires both student and educator to seek the path of least resistance. In 8 weeks, with 2 sessions per week of an hour or two apiece, with a year’s worth of material to cover, it is impossible to create meaningful experiences, difficult enough to raise a score.

So, I’ve spent these weeks trying to travel the distance between A and B, or between a 392 and a 400 (depending on the individual), trying to create a tolerable experience for students more consumed by the unsettling prospect of not graduating than any real possibility of connection to content or consideration of what they might do after high school.

Fortunately, I’m hearing far fewer policy-makers in Columbus suggesting that the solution to our assessment problem as it relates to graduation is simply to provide remediation. Now, perhaps this is still being said and I’m just not there to hear it, a tree falling in the woods kind of thing. I’m choosing to be optimistic on this one, though, and believe that the powers that be have begun to realize that the problem is in the assessments themselves. 

Having written the members of the House and Senate Education Committees and the State School Board last month, I received some positive, if minimal, feedback. House Ed Committee Chair Andrew Brenner called to voice his agreement on some issues and suggest that there is a path forward. Several members of the State Board also responded in support of finding a better system. I have included those messages below.

So, I guess I’ll continue to believe. It is a season of belief. If I made a Christmas List, a permanent solution to the Graduation Problem would be at the top of it. 

As it stands, I have one more remediation class in which I’ll review an entire course. I’d better rest up.

It’s Time to Email Everyone Again, Having Become Convinced No One is Paying Any Attention.

So, the Graduation Crisis is once again a problem. The Graduation Requirement has not changed, so obviously there’s still a problem, unless teachers like myself, and our students have pulled ourselves up by our bootstraps in some ridiculous manipulation of an American Dream that is dependent upon the passage of a standardized test. 

I find the entire argument exhausting anymore, and to be honest, I find its impact on my job untenable. 

As I’ve been arguing for years, the grad requirement is nonsense, so I’ve written the members of the House and Senate Education Committees, or whatever they’re calling them now. We’ve traveled long enough with this testing scenario. It’s time for something more intellectual, more thoughtful, more meaningful. Here’s my letter...

Senator...

I have spent the better part of the last three years corresponding with you, and other legislators about a problem with the graduation requirement. As a teacher in an urban high school, Elyria, I felt that I had some insight on the issue. My students were in danger of not graduating, largely due to an unfair and unnecessary assessment system. They still are. Unfortunately, the Ohio Senate and House of Representatives, as well as the State School Board, has been reluctant to listen, to provide a permanent solution, though a legitimate attempt to assist the class of 2018 was included in the budget bill.

All available evidence provided by the Ohio Department of Education, regardless of their positive spin, indicates that this year’s juniors are in essentially the same situation as last year’s. Statistics indicate that only 65% of this year’s juniors are likely or highly likely to graduate under the assessment system. As you would imagine, the situation is worse in Ohio’s impoverished urban centers.

It is long past time to change the current system. In January of this year, I wrote the following, and I would encourage you to revisit it, and move forward for the sake of Ohio’s students.

If we are to move toward excellence in education, we should be more concerned with providing opportunities for students, as opposed to doling out punishments. In that, education on the whole needs to become less reliant on the weight of standardized test scores which have always, though especially recently, provided negligible data. If it is philosophically impossible to eliminate standardized tests as a determinant for graduation (federal law does not require it), then they should at least be limited to something akin to the OGT. In combination with this, the point totals necessary for graduation should be lowered AND additional ways of earning points should be established. Standardized tests do not measure, nor do they promote, career or college readiness. They also do not begin to convey the level of work that is required of a student through the process of their education. Offering points for active participation in student groups, service organizations, taking on leadership roles, internships or employment, course grades, extracurriculars and otherwise should be considered.

Yours in education,

Matthew T. Jablonski

A Few Run on Sentences Regarding the Exaggerated Demise of the Graduation Problem.

One: Not Encouraging.

This week, Ohio’s School Board was entertained with a presentation from the Ohio Department of Education, seemingly meant to diminish any lingering concern regarding the Graduation Crisis, in which they illustrated the “encouraging” news that 77% of Ohio’s seniors (according to their estimates) are on track to graduate - encouraging despite only 50% of urban very high poverty students being “on track,” despite the fact that this year’s juniors, the class of 2019, are in essentially the same place as their predecessors in their assessment related progress to graduation.

Two: Legislate for All Students.

Because the poor, with terribly immediate issues with which to deal (like multiple jobs, food insecurity, subsequent health issues, lack of transportation) are less likely to have enough time to devote to simply understand the convoluted Graduation Requirement, or apply political pressure, or voice their concerns to the media, the O.D.E., State Superintendent, and legislators seem to believe that they can create policy that exacerbates the systemic inequality prevalent in our society, as the shameless spinning of this grad data proves.

Three: Cycle.

Insisting on success within an assessment system that reflects little more than economic standing as contingent for a high school diploma does little more than assure that the “have-nots” will not graduate, will be wholly unable to continue their education, so subsequently only qualify for low-paying jobs, and assure the continued “economic disadvantage” for themselves in their lifetime, and their children in theirs.

Four: Shut Up.

The insistence from Columbus on the unproven lie that success on state assessments somehow equates to career or college readiness is not helping boost achievement for Ohio’s students, when education practitioners from all corners of the state understand completely that the system is a sham, limited at best in its ability to measure anything, and yet still being wielded as a weapon to punish children and their teachers while being disguised as a mechanism for improvement with phrases like “they have answered the call” or “they have stepped up to the challenge.”

Five: Chad.

Chad Aldis of the Fordham Foundation believes we teachers and students have stepped up to the challenge of tougher expectations on the new assessments, and that the grad crisis isn’t what we thought it was, and all sorts of other bullshit he thinks we’re listening to, even though we know that he’s an advocate for charter schools who benefit from the failure of public schools on an assessment system (that essentially measures economics), through the opening of districts to new charters, or the complete CEO-style takeover of districts like Youngstown and Lorain.

Assessments benefit the people you work for, Chad, we get it.

Six: The Reality.

There is still a Graduation Problem, if not a Crisis.

Thousands of students will be prevented from graduating because of a flawed assessment system.

Those students left without diplomas will be disproportionately economically disadvantaged.

This is criminal.