State Assessment Scores, and then what really matters.

Well it's Memorial Day and the school year is near its end. I know, I can hardly believe it myself based on the simple fact that we're done 2 days into June instead of a week or more later. This new calendar is designed to provide us, educators and students, with more time before the state assessments.

It's worth reflecting on the overall effectiveness of this decision-making. 

I'm sure those folks who spent the dog days of August in classrooms without climate control would have a few words. My son and his friends spent a few days under these conditions, returning home soaked in sweat with the vacant look in their eyes that comes with dehydration and exhaustion. My wife and I would ask how was school, what did you do? "I don't know," was the typical August reply and I believed him. His brain had just spent 6 hours cooking inside his skull, and not because of Ohio's rigorous New Learning Standards.

Some teachers took those extra few weeks early in the year just waiting for the opportunity to administer their district scheduled Student Growth Measures, pre-tests necessary for compliance with the Ohio Teacher Evaluation System. I love it when waiting on permission to administer one assessment prevents the beginning of preparation for another assessment. So much for the state's assertion that the elimination of PARCC has cured what ails us.

To be honest, the only evaluation of the adjusted school calendar that anyone is going to care about, regardless of the thoughtful or sweaty analysis of teachers and students, are the scores on the state tests. 

If you keep up with the Ohio Department of Education, those scores have been released. Not your child's scores; let's not be silly. What the ODE has already determined is how many students will score proficient or above. Based on the scores of students in Washington, or some other state with comparable NAEP scores, the state has analyzed and determined cut scores. So, for example, on this year's Algebra I test the ODE predicts 57% of students will score proficient or above. For English I the number is 54%.

Here's a link to the information for all grades proficient and above percentages for Math and ELA.

So, how well did my students do on the assessments? Well, I don't know, but the state has this predetermined percentage that would indicate, predictably, that students in an urban district like mine will score poorly. Consider the flip side of those percentages. Yes, 54% in the state will score proficient or above in ELA I. That means that 46% will not earn enough points to meet the average in order to graduate. As I've said before, I believe this is terribly problematic, but no one seems to want to talk about it. As a teacher, could I begin a course with the assumption that 54% will pass? No. Yet this seems to summarize the methodology of the Ohio Department of Education and its assessment system.

Again, how well did my students do on the assessments? I don't know. To make matters worse, we are not permitted to see the tests, discuss the tests, reflect on the tests, and we'll not get any scores from the tests until months after my students leave my classroom. Furthermore, the ODE has suggested that they will be providing schools with little to no data regarding performance levels on individual or bands of standards which will make it nearly impossible for educators to target areas of concern.

Did the extra time before the assessments help? Who knows, but more time for meaningful and relevant instruction is always beneficial. A simple way to maximize the aforementioned instruction time is, quite simply, to minimize assessment time. If we could do that, I wouldn't have to keep talking about this shit. 

Believe me, I'm tired of talking about these things. As I said, it's the end of the school year. We're all tired. At some point this year, I made a conscious decision to try and simplify my approach. Fear not, I covered the content and did my due diligence grinding through test preparation. My student's graduation is dependent upon that reality. But that's a stressful proposition, so I tried to focus more on being a decent human being while bringing humor and understanding to an otherwise atrocious situation considering the high stakes testing. I wanted to recognize that the life of a student can be difficult, and that I was in a position, perhaps, to improve the quality and nature of their educational experience.

So, to my students this year...Hannah, Sebastian, James, and Brandon. The many Emily's, Mikayla, Mackenzie, and Michael. All of you that I had the good fortune to meet. I hope that it worked.

Still Life With Howard Zinn and The White Album.

Having referenced a quote from former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara regarding the Gulf of Tonkin Incident in Zinn's People's History in class on Wednesday, held a mock student draft using the 1969 lottery numbers yesterday, and opened class today with While My Guitar Gently Weeps, my students and I continue to enjoy meaningful and relevant academic experiences. 

This is the beautiful time of year that I commonly refer to as "Life After Assessments."

Don't get me wrong, there's a test on the war in Vietnam a week from Tuesday, but it speaks directly to my student's experience, is administered within the context of our study of the topic, contains no questions seemingly designed to be purposefully obtuse, and comes with guaranteed thoughtful feedback from the instructor (that's me) by Thursday.

From Kent State's Master of Arts in Teaching, Action Research Presentations.

On Thursday, I had the wonderful opportunity to visit Kent State to address a group of aspiring teachers and a few of their professors regarding the work my wife and I have been engaged in to positively impact education policy in Ohio. 

I often find the activism disheartening as an issue I'm addressing becomes compounded by others, or as correspondence to legislators goes unanswered, or if those with whom I meet and speak seem uninterested. 

However, in planning my remarks I was able to set side by side the accomplishments of the past 2 years and I was encouraged. I know, excessive assessments persist, funding is not yet equitable, Ross and Hansen have not been investigated, and the Youngstown Plan moves forward. Within that mess, the double testing window is gone and so are Hansen and Ross, a plan is in motion to improve the Lorain schools to protect them from the Youngstown Plan, and dozens of public school districts have passed resolutions billing the state for money lost to charters. This doesn't include the countless legislative fires that have been put out along the way.

Did I do this? Hell no, but I like to think that I played a role, however small. I hope you feel that you have too.

This opportunity to speak at Kent had me revisit these things, and renewed my sense of purpose. The new teachers who presented their action research on a variety of topics, ranging from the use of technology to experiencing grief in the classroom, were highly motivated, intelligent, and articulate individuals who will grace our schools soon. I hope that as their careers progress, they too will have a sense that their voice can make a difference.

Thanks to everyone at Kent for the hospitality, and a special thanks to my good friend Bryan Ashkettle for making the connections.

Here's a piece from the Kent State website on the event. It accompanies the picture above.

Each May, the Master's of Arts in Teaching (MAT) program teacher candidates shared their action research projects conducted during student teaching.This year's event featured Elyria High School social studies teacher and activist, Matthew Jablonski, as the keynote speaker. Eleven MAT students presented their findings and drew implications for their future teaching practice. 

The MAT program is a full time, 11 month graduate-level program that prepares teacher candidates for initial licensure in Ohio and many other states. The program accepts candidates interested in teaching Language Arts, Mathematics, Science and social studies in grades 7-12. Additionally, the program prepares multi-age teachers (pre-K through 12) in Art, Dance, Foreign Language, and Health. This accelerated program is offered to recent bachelor and graduate degree holders, as well as career changing professionals, who now desire to become teachers. 

Pictured from left to right: Dr. Bryan Ashkettle, Mr. Matthew Jablonski, Dr. Lisa Testa, and Mr. Michael Levicky. 

Interim State Superintendent Lonny Rivera says, "We Need Testing."

In my in-box today from Ohio's Interim Superintendant Dr. Rivera...

"I know you appreciate the crucial importance of maintaining student progress in an effective education system — for students, their parents, teachers, school administrators and the taxpayers who support your district. Testing shows evidence of student progress. It provides much needed information to classroom teachers and others, so they can monitor and improve our efforts in service of students. Results of these assessments provide the whole community perspective on what their students are able to retain and apply long term, allowing for reflection and improvement. Especially at a time when we must prepare our students for the high-skill demands of today’s workforce, we need testing — and test results — to tell us how to best help our students succeed."

As a teacher in an urban high school, I do appreciate the importance of maintaining student progress. Students in my school often have a multitude of obstacles to overcome prior to being able to make adequate academic progress. Sometimes students have health concerns, family problems, emotional issues, developmental concerns, problems related to poverty, parental unemployment, homelessness, and poor diet, among many others. I'm sure you understand.

Unfortunately, that progress has recently been stymied by a month of testing. 

Here's the thing, though, with all due respect to Dr. Rivera, who I'm sure means well, testing has never helped any of my students overcome the obstacles that prevent their progress. Furthermore, these assessments provide very little in the way of evidence with any real value. They've never really provided me with "much needed information." The way I understand it, school districts will get overall results from these assessments in June, parent reports in July. I hope to get the data related to my students this summer, but I've gotten no guarantees. Even if I do, my sophomores are gone June 1st, and my school is so big, I may never see them again.

As a teacher, the "reflection and improvement" that I make use of most effectively is done moment to moment in the classroom based on student responses, or lesson to lesson, day to day, unit to unit. I use formative assessments almost daily and summative assessment every few weeks. When I analyze those moments, or grade those tests, the results are in my hand, right then. At that point I make informed decisions about instruction. If I am unsure of something, then I discuss matters with the many effective professional educators who I am proud to call my colleagues.

All Dr. Rivera's test results do, is to provide us with information on how we can best help students succeed on tests. And while test scores may improve...I know much has been made lately of our "success" on the third grade reading guarantee...what we have improved is test performance. If success on assessments is our goal, then yes Dr. Rivera, "we need testing." However, if we are truly interested in student progress, and legitimate preparation for the high-skill demands of today's workforce, then we should probably reconsider our priorities.

It is widely understood that these assessments primarily reflect economic status. We don't need standardized tests to tell us who is economically vulnerable. We need remediation of their conditions, solutions to the obstacles that prevent student progress in an effective education system.

The Testing Window Has Opened.

Goal: End unnecessary state testing.

The testing window has opened here in Ohio, and students across the state, at all levels, have begun to sit for 3 hour assessments in a variety of subjects. At the younger grades a lot of districts are giving the tests in two parts because it's easier for an 8 year old to sit for 90 minutes. (I said easier, not easy)

I coach a youth soccer team of 11 and 12 year olds. At practice on Thursday, they were wild before we started. A bit nuttier than usual. We did our lap, had a stretch, and before I introduced our plan for practice I asked them, "So, how many of you had to take a really long test this week?" The majority of them raised their hands and this same group of boys who, 5 minutes prior, had been energetic and joyful, immediately became sullen, if not angry and defeated. I made an on the spot decision to play the 3 or 4 small sided games that they love the most.

It was the least I could do. I certainly couldn't tell them that their 5th and 6th grade tests were meaningless, even though they are, or that their grades on them aren't a real grade. Their teachers won't even see their scores until well after the school year has ended, and when they do, those scores will indicate what they always do, that rich kids outperform the poor.

The state tells their parents that the assessments are valuable so that we can have apples to apples comparisons of students, teachers, schools, and districts through the ever important value-added measure. But this logic has long since been proven flawed.

So, if I were to attempt to provide a legitimate reason why these kids were subjected to a 90 minute test multiple times this week, I simply cannot come up with anything good enough. The whole damn system exists because of the Texas Miracle of more tests and accountability equating to greater performance and lower dropouts. We all know that it was a lie. And yet state authorities persist with a system of assessment that has yet to have much, if any, positive impact on education.

Forgive me, but I'm not going to be the one to explain to these boys that they're taking standardized tests because a long time ago, some powerful adults lied about these tests being a good thing, and some other powerful adults (including the President) promoted the lie and made some laws as a result. Then, once everybody figured out they were all lying, it was too late, and nobody did shit to change the system.

The reasons we administer these assessments simply aren't good enough. I'm advocating for change, and I believe that my team (and their peers) would agree with me.

In the mean time, we're going to have a kick around and try to forget about the testing window.

They want input, but they don't want input.

The kids aren't alright, Jim Wright.

The Ohio Department of Education has made much lately of their interest in having a collaborative process in reviewing standards and creating assessments. I have personally received no fewer than a dozen emails over the last 2 weeks encouraging me to get involved in the review of the ELA and Math standards. I forwarded the information to the English and Math Department Chairs at my school and encouraged them to participate. It is good to feel like a part of the process.

Being a Social Studies teacher at the High School level, I've recently been less concerned with the aforementioned Common Core standards and more concerned about the alarmingly low End of Course assessment scores.

In my last post, I mentioned a few of the reasons why Ohio's new Three Paths to Graduation could be problematic. I admit to not being an expert. My wife, however, is becoming one. She recognized the degree to which I was legitimately concerned about the issue, and spent several weeks studying the report card data for our district and others like it. She also compiled information on the ACT remediation free path, as well as percentages of vocational ed students. She then sent info in multiple short blasts to all Ohio State School Board Members, as well as all members of the House and Senate Education Committees. You can see the scope of her research here...   and here...

Here is a brief piece of her correspondence with the state...

To Whom It May Concern:

While I was pleased to learn that over 100 Ohio educators played an integral role in setting the performance standards for this year’s ELA and Math AIR tests (unlike last year where we let PARCC decide the standards for us), I am still very concerned with the projected number of students who will score proficient on the different components of the high school level state tests. As you can see from the chart below, 41% of kids are expected to score a 1 or 2 on the Geometry test. When you compare that to the percentage that scored a 1 or 2 on last year’s Algebra test (49.1% of kids in my similar district study which I sent you last week received a 1 or 2 on the Algebra I test) you should realize that there is cause for concern. Students need 4 points total in Math to fulfill that requirement for graduation. I think that you can fairly assume that some of these students that scored a one or a two on the Algebra I test could be the same ones that score a 1 or a 2 on the Geometry test. You also cannot assume that these kids will be getting 3’s and 4’s on their ELA tests. 59.9% of the kids in the districts I studied last year received a 1 or a 2 on the ELA I test; 48% of kids across the state are expected to get a 1 or a 2 on the ELA II test. You can assume that the similar districts studied would have an even higher percentage only getting a 1 or a 2 on the ELA II test based on their past performance on state tests and the number of studies done that rightly suggest that students in high poverty areas (like the ones I studied) tend to not do as well on standardized tests. You can see the latest study that happens to address these differences in scores from last year’s Ohio tests here: http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2015/12/poor_kids_do_poorly_affluent_do_better_on_ohios_state_tests_-_again.html

You must also keep in mind that students have to score a total of six points across the Science and Social Studies tests and receive a total of 18 points all together. If there are so many students that could struggle to meet the requirements of each separate component, it will be nearly impossible for them to make up the additional 4 points they will need to get 18 total points.

Her research and concerns are legitimate, and her numbers are accurate. Director of Assessment, Jim Wright, sees things differently. In his patronizing response, he trots out the state's tired old bullshit about raising the bar. By raising the bar he means fewer poor kids and minorities will graduate. He also wows us with the Ohio Department of Education's Holy Trinity, the "Three Paths to Graduation." I guess he figured we were unaware of the fantastic bounty of options awaiting Ohio's students. Go ahead, check it out.

Ms. Jablonski,

Thank you for your email and sharing your concerns pertaining to the high school graduation tests. Ohio continues to raise the bar for students to ensure that they are prepared for postsecondary opportunities, whether college or a selected career. The new graduation requirements offer three pathways to demonstrate their preparedness through either the end-of-course exams, remediation-free scores on a college readiness exam (ACT/SAT), or with WorkKeys and a career credential. For the end-of-course pathway that you are addressing, students have flexibility in attaining the needed 18 points with the minimums in content areas as you describe. Most of these seven courses will be completed during the early high school years, and this will allow for multiple opportunities for retakes. The state high school end-of-course tests are currently offered three times annually, including a summer administration.

Sincerely,

Jim Wright

Director, Office of Curriculum and Assessment

So, it appears that the Ohio Department of Education wants a collaborative process that includes educators and community members when that involves participating in a convoluted survey regarding standards. That way they can show us their many invitations to become a "part of the process," without ever doing a damn thing with the information provided.

However, if the "community" researches a legitimate concern, compiles data that seems to suggest a scenario that will prohibit thousands of students from graduating, the ODE is unwilling to seriously consider the information, or begin a discussion regarding its ramifications.

To make matters worse, in this case, Jim Wright seems to agree that there will be an issue. At least he did on January 26, 2016 when he said as much at a meeting of the Ohio Technical Advisory Committee. Here is a quote from the minutes of that meeting...

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 then, Mr. Wright? The email to my wife seems to suggest that the kids are alright if they only follow one of the three magical pathways to graduation. And yet, in the above meeting with your colleagues, you've admitted the situation will be challenging IF the assessments are used in defining high school graduation. Those assessments ARE being used in defining high school graduation. The other two paths are NOT as viable as you and the Ohio Department of Education would have us believe.

To make matters worse, Mr. Wright cc'd all of the State School Board members in the email he sent my wife, as if he wanted to assure them that the kids are alright, as well as discredit her concerns. All he has done is to provide limited and misleading information to community members and the State School Board. The kids aren't alright.

On the Eve of the Testing Window, Let Us Reconsider The Three Paths to Graduation.

As we all know, Ohio has expanded its graduation requirements to include three paths. These include the ever unpopular and still confusing End of Year Assessment route, the remediation free ACT route, and the WorkKeys Industry Credential route.

If you're unfamiliar, the state's presentation on them can be found here.

When referencing the Three Paths to Graduation, the Ohio Department of Education has taken on a reverent tone as if they are recounting the biblical story of the loaves and the fishes, and many people seem to be buying into this line with all the fervor of religious devotees. Where there was once only a single path to graduation, the legislature has acted in the interest of all Ohio children, and now there are many. Amen.

According to the ODE website, "The transition to multiple options for earning a high school diploma is an exciting one for students who will have more flexibility for success in school and preparing for their future after high school."

I don't know about you, but I'm sick with excitement, and to be fair, more seems better than less. We are Americans, and we want 3 burgers for the price of one. This is the land of plenty, and we should all be so fortunate to share in the bounty of freedom and opportunity, hamburgers, and more standardized testing options than one human being should be able to tolerate without a complete nervous breakdown.

What the ODE is assuming, calling on our blind faith or blind patriotism, is that we're going to believe that the state has created a system that by sheer inclusion of multiple pathways for assessment (I mean graduation) is somehow doing what is right for kids. Except that it isn't. I believe, and I hope I'm not alone, that this system is terribly flawed and could cause a sharp decline in graduation rates at least in the first 5 years, and perhaps beyond.

As I have indicated previously, some Ohio districts had fewer than 50% of their students scoring proficient on last year's Algebra tests (among others). That equates to fewer than the necessary minimum points toward graduation per test (2.57) for more than half of the tested students in those districts. Predictably, these are districts with higher rates of students labeled economically disadvantaged. I understand that the numbers will increase year to year over the next 5-10, but how are these students expected to graduate? Again, you cannot assume every kid who struggles with Math will pull brilliant scores in the other disciplines in order to compensate, and earn the necessary 18 points toward graduation. As a matter of fact, many of the students scoring poorly in Algebra will likely struggle across assessments.

Yes, the tests can be retaken in an attempt to earn a higher score. In this scenario we're assuming those same economically disadvantaged districts are re-testing better than half of their students. We are also expecting, regardless of district, a better score testing a second time despite the fact that those students are no longer enrolled in the courses being tested, and where no remediation programs exist because the assessments themselves are too new.

Sometimes when I mention my concerns regarding the new Ohio high school assessment system to people who would listen me, they concede that I may have a point. There is often a brief look of panic that flashes in their eyes as they consider the ramifications. Unfortunately, after that, many simply walk away toward their quiet place, humming to themselves, wishing they had chosen a career in plastics.

What I'm finding more problematic, however, are those few who stick around, and they are few. They take on a hopeful look, smiling sympathetically, as if to say, "You silly, silly, man. You worry needlessly." Then they explain in earnest... "Perhaps you don't understand. There are THREE paths to graduation."

Of course, forever the skeptic, I interject...

According to The Ohio Education Policy Institute, in analysis of state data, only 15.1% of students scored remediation free on the ACT in districts with greater than 90% economically disadvantaged students. In areas with high rates of poverty, rural or urban, this is not a viable path to graduation. In districts with only 10% economically disadvantaged the percent of students scoring remediation free is only 69%. It's not a foolproof option even in the state's most successful districts.

See that report here.

And if the solution is a vocational certification, a 2014 report by the Fordham Institute indicates that only one in four students in Ohio's Career and Technical Planning Districts earned an industry credential. The data in this report was somewhat limited, but the numbers do not seem promising.

Less than 50% proficiency on new assessments, 15% scoring remediation free on the ACT, 25% earning industry credentials. What does this mean? I believe that we have to assume that students who score poorly on Ohio's End of Year tests will also be unable to achieve a remediation free score on the ACT, and less likely to gain an industry credential combined with a satisfactory score on the WorkKeys assessment. This could be terribly problematic for Ohio's most vulnerable students, those who are economically disadvantaged.

My conclusions here are based upon some educated speculation. I teach in an urban high school whose success on standardized tests has never been guaranteed. I have been conditioned to fear the worst where the Ohio Department of Education is concerned. My school became very successful under the previous system (perhaps necessitating a new system under which we can fail), but it took some time. The work of myself and my colleagues will raise the scores over the next 5-10 years, but what about these kids? Their work deserves a diploma, and the Three Paths to Graduation, as exciting as they are, don't seem to lead there.

To be honest, I hope that my speculation turns out to be a misinterpretation of the data. However, it is the utter lack of dialogue regarding the potential problems that I find so terribly frightening. We cannot simply accept the state's line that this will all work out. They have no evidence to support their claims that this system is better than the last. Worse, they seem to be making this up as they go along. For the sake of my students, I'd prefer to at least begin a discussion prior to a potential crisis.