Friday, December 30, 2016

Improvement is Everyone's Business.

 


I was pleased to read about State Superintendent DeMaria's recent holiday visits to schools in western Ohio in which he celebrated the overall quality of Ohio schools. According to The Daily Standard, DeMaria called an Ohio education 'first rate,' but said that officials are always trying to improve. He compared attempts at improvement by the Cavs and Browns to his and the ODE's attempts to spearhead improvement in Ohio's schools. From the article...

"DeMaria said he is working to bridge the gap between the ODE and area school districts, adding state and local officials must cooperate if education 'is ever going to improve.'"

I hope that Mr. DeMaria recognizes that these attempts to improve are not only undertaken by himself and other administrators, but by teachers on a daily basis. As a teacher, I was taught that this "reflective process" is integral to achieving excellence. One learns to recognize, moment to moment, the adaptations and improvements necessary to provide a quality education. I'm following this process daily. This is one of the reasons why education in Ohio is first rate, teachers like myself reflect and improve throughout our careers. Unfortunately, all too often I get the sense, and perhaps other teachers do as well, that the ODE believes that teachers are the problem. Contrary to what Superintendent DeMaria might suggest to the media, I find that he and the ODE are unwilling to listen to practitioners in the field, and are more susceptible to their own rhetoric, than the actual analysis of data.

Some of the Superintendent's comments regarding the graduation problem illustrate his, and the ODE's, unwillingness to recognize the legitimate need for a change as argued by teachers, principals, superintendents, and other stakeholders. At the meeting in western Ohio, Celina superintendent Ken Schmiesing voiced his concern over the coming decline in graduation rates. DeMaria recognized the concern as legitimate, but believes that over time graduation rates will stabilize. 

The problem once again here is that Superintendent DeMaria is talking about a "rate", an arbitrary percentage, where teachers like myself are discussing people, an actual number of students who will NOT graduate because of an arbitrary system. If the percentage of non-graduates is 30, as has been widely anticipated, and my school has 400 seniors next year, then 120 do not graduate. Except that mine is an urban high school, so we would skew higher than the average. Urban schools might realistically estimate 40-60% of non-graduates, maybe more. Again, the percentages don't do this justice. In that senior class of 400, that's 160-240 students, maybe more, who will not receive a diploma.

I am talking about Tom and James, Haley, Judy, Tim, Alex, Carol, Marie, and Jack. The ODE speaks in percentages. Teachers speak in lives. 

Unfortunately, it seems as if the State Superintendent and the ODE are cool with this situation because "over time" the rates will stabililize. I'd like to know how much time is involved, and how many students Mr. DeMaria is willing to sacrifice. I know these kids, and I'm not willing to sacrifice one of them. 

I think we can easily conclude that those sacrificed will include ALL students currently in high school, and likely those in grades 6-8 (and possibly lower) since they have not had the benefit of the new state standards throughout their educational career. Regardless of the purpose, this scenario of failing kids is unacceptable. What is worse, is that the reasoning posited by DeMaria, the ODE, and many Ohio politicians is utterly unfounded. According to the article, DeMaria says...

"We saw too many students were going to college and finding they need remediation, or they were going into the workforce and finding that they didn't have the skills to be successful,"

First of all, and perhaps this is splitting hairs, but Mr. DeMaria didn't see anything when these decisions were made as he wasn't the Super when this was undertaken, but as a member of the Ohio Board of Regents he would have recognized that Ohio students scored above the national average on ACT scores.

 

Furthermore, and more importantly to his first nonsensical argument, is that the rate of students in need of remediation has been declining, according to the Ohio Department of Higher Education. From information published in January of 2016... "Data in the recently published 2015 Ohio Remediation Report shows that the percentage of students needing remedial coursework decreased from 37 percent in 2014 to 32 percent in 2015. There also was a reduction in the number of students solely needing mathematics remediation (from 32 to 28 percent) and English remediation (from 16 to 13 percent) during the same period."

A study by the state you work for runs contrary to your argument to fail my students, Mr. DeMaria.

It should be recognized that these improvements in the lack of need for remediation have absolutely nothing to do with the graduation requirement  because the students in question were not under the "new" system. 

As for the second reason for more "rigorous" standards and testing, I've long heard about the approach of business leaders saying that Ohio's graduates just don't have the "skills" for the workplace. And yet, I've never actually heard this quoted from a business leader.

As a matter of fact, at a faculty meeting earlier this year our administration reported that local business leaders looked for employees who 1) showed up, 2) showed up on time, and were 3) able to work well with others. 

I'm waiting to hear something like, "Good god, she's management potential, but she just doesn't know enough about how the Northwest Ordinance relates to statehood." Or "That guy is the best sales associate I've ever seen except for his complete inability to identify the denouement in an American short story."

As a matter of fact, the most valued qualities in employees are not things that can be measured on a standardized test. According to a recent survey of business leaders done by Forbes the top five qualities businesses look for in college graduates are as follows...

1. Ability to work in a team structure


2. Ability to make decisions and solve problems (tie)


3. Ability to communicate verbally with people inside and outside an organization


4. Ability to plan, organize and prioritize work


5. Ability to obtain and process information


As you can see, this has little, if anything to do with Ohio's, or anyone's, standardized testing system. This is why Ohio is one of only 13 states to require a test in order to graduate, it is utterly unnecessary.


Mr. DeMaria needs to take his own advice and begin to cooperate. There is no requirement at the federal level for a test to be passed in order to graduate. There are no legitimate reasons to maintain this system. 


Despite how this sounds, I believe that Superintendent Paolo DeMaria seeks to improve education in Ohio. Why else would he accept his post? In the article in The Daily Standard, he wonders how school districts in such close proximity can have such different results. If he is truly befuddled, I would draw his attention to the recent census reports in the Cleveland Plain Dealer on median incomes and poverty rates  and suggest that he compare them to the Ohio Department of Education's measures of district success. What he'll find is predictable, at least in my mind.


He will find the situation to be as it has always been.


The rich kids win.


The poor kids lose.


The problem now is that he and the ODE, the State School Board, and the Ohio Legislature are more than willing to let thousands of kids we know to fail to get a diploma for absolutely no reasonable purpose.


Perhaps in the new year Mr. DeMaria might make a resolution to step outside of his insulated affluent reality, to internalize a long-proven fact that poverty impacts education, and begin to dismantle the graduation requirement in favor of funding programs that actually benefit students.


After all, Mr. DeMaria, in your own words, "Improvement is everybody's business."



Friday, December 23, 2016

Merry Christmas, you've got it made.

 

I ran into an old friend of mine at my niece's Holiday Band Concert earlier this week. My niece plays the trombone, and she and her fellow fifth graders rocked a version of Good King Wenceslas, among other tunes. Interested, I looked up the story of Wenceslas and found that he was not only generous with his meat, wine, and logs as indicated in the song, but was also murdered by his brother, Boleslaw the Bad. The thought of those kids sincerely blowing tribute to a brutally assassinated Catholic duke filled me with holiday cheer, and (I felt) leant an artistic cutting edge to the proceedings.

After the show, we headed for the hallway, where we would stand around smiling ridiculously at everyone and wait to congratulate the kids on their good work. I caught up with my friend on the way through the door and wished him a Merry Christmas. We talked about the show a bit and, knowing I'm a teacher, he asked about my holiday. We've got a long break this year, I told him off-hand, feeling fortunate to have the opportunity to spend time with my family. His reply was predictable, I guess, something in the spirit of, 'You teachers have it made."

My first instinct was to use some language that wouldn't have been school appropriate. Instead I just smiled, wondering what method Boleslaw used to kill his brother. We wished each other well, and that was it.

Except it wasn't. I'm sure that dude didn't mean anything by what he said, but I keep thinking of what it is that I do for I living, and of all my friends and colleagues who devote themselves to teaching. I keep thinking of Wenceslas, head down, marching miles through knee deep frozen snow on the cruelest of winter days just to help someone in need. 

So, for all of you teachers who internalize your students every problem and perhaps find it difficult to sleep... 

For you who spend your free time coaching every season, or organizing student council and other clubs, or running after school programs because kids deserve it... 

For the teacher activists who will not rest until there is an end to high-stakes testing, until there is equitable funding, until your students are well represented... 

For any teacher who attends programs and competitions outside of their school day, spends to supplement the shortfalls, tutors for the test or simple understanding... 

For you who continue in this profession despite the not very thoughtful comments or outright attacks from those who are ill informed or simply mean-spirited...

Merry Christmas, you've got it made. From "Good King Wenceslas"... 

"He who now will bless the poor
will yourselves find blessing."


Wednesday, December 14, 2016

State School Board does nothing, calls it a success.

 Esteemed President of the Board, Kasich appointee Tom Gunlock.

So, the state board's plan of action regarding their graduation debacle is inaction.

They have voted to establish a committee to study potential problems with the graduation requirement as well as potential solutions. April was given as a vague end point to their study. Until that time, Ohio's juniors are left to wring their hands in worry, and wonder why they're expected to grind through the rigors of their high school education, while those in power have yet to do anything to fix the system that fails them.

The concern and skepticism of those invested in the situation is well merited as the record does not suggest that the board is capable of, or even intends to actually study the problem. 

Myself and other stakeholders have been contacting public officials since February about a potential problem. Board members raised concerns as early as June suggesting real issues with test results, and the possible train wreck of graduation rates. Over the last two months the board has been presented with graduation projection simulations by the ODE, concerns and corresponding data from hundreds of local superintendents, and no doubt countless letters from students, parents, educators, and administrators.

After months of input, the state board, in their wisdom, has decided that now they will investigate the matter.

It has become difficult to determine what is most frustrating about this situation. Is it the muleheaded reluctance of many members of the board to consider factual information from experts in the field? Perhaps it is the insistence of board members like President Tom Gunlock and Todd Jones in placing the blame on students and teachers with anecdote and hyperbole. Both also insist that these assessments actually provide some proof of student college and career readiness, when decades of statistical analysis of scores indicates they are best at measuring economics.

Jones and Gunlock insist that lowering the points necessary for graduation would be akin to handing out diplomas without merit, kind of like being appointed to a position in state government because your family is old friends with the governor, and they consistently make sizable donations to the right candidates. Was it $30,000 to Kasich's campaign, Mr. Gunlock

In reality, a high school diploma is actually earned through 4 (or 13 if we measure K-12) years of coursework, reading, research, writing, projects and presentation, collaboration with one's peers, problem solving, and the critical analysis of new information in order to fit it in with one's existing schema as a student informs their skill set and world view. And yes, there are tests as well, the most valuable of which are created by classroom teachers based on standards driven class content. The thing is, student success is not measured solely by these test scores, and certainly not by a single test score. Students in thoughtful educational environments are provided a variety of opportunities to prove competence because quality education is a process. 

Unfortunately, members of the school board are failing to understand the most basic elements of the process and merits of education. Their decisions are based on a long ago refuted philosophy that standardized tests create increased rigor and excellence in education. Those of us working in the field know that programs, personnel, and students do those things.

What is worse is that many members of the Ohio Board of Education do not have to answer to constituents because they have been appointed. Their willful ignorance of what might be best for students, and inability to admit that they are complicit in the creation of a system that is failing Ohio's kids will go unanswered. Their insistence on blaming teachers and students, instead of listening to them, has no recourse.

In November, Senator Peggy Lehner said regarding the graduation crisis, if the school board can't fix it, then she and the legislature will. Now she appears smitten by this idea to form a committee. She mentioned leading a task force on testing issues in 2014 and said it had "tremendous value." Unfortunately, educational stakeholders would largely contest the relative value of her task force. In a recent study by the Ohio Department of Education for the state's transition under new federal guidelines according to ESSA they report  "Ohio's assessment system received the most significant pushback of any of the issues that were discussed." As reported by the Plain Dealer in discussion of chief issues to come out of the ESSA meetings, a senior policy advisor for the ODE said, "The amount of testing was at the top, followed closely by concerns around charter schools."

To make a long story short (too late), I'm not sure this new committee is necessary. I can think of two committees already in existence that could solve the issue...

Committee #1: The several hundred local Superintendents that met in Columbus last month.

Committee #2: Schoolteachers.

I really don't care if it's the state school board or the legislature that fixes this issue. Whoever it is should keep in mind that Ohio is one of only 13 states that require the passage of standardized tests in order to graduate. It is not required by federal law.

And there is your solution. Committee meeting adjourned.

Sunday, December 4, 2016

We Are All Youngstown. We Are All Lorain. We are all living through a series of nightmares worthy of Dickens.

 
The Ghost of Christmas Future, Betsy Devos

As a public school teacher, I've spent the past few weeks suffering night terrors, waking up screaming in defense of public schools. The specter of Betsy Devos is haunting me like the ghost of Christmas future, showing me scenes of myself teaching in an underfunded Christian charter school that was once the effective public school in which I currently teach.

What I realized yesterday, is that in all of the well-meaning hysteria about educational (and other) politics on the national level, this Dickensian nightmare is already happening here in Ohio. HB 70's Youngstown Plan has already resulted in the takeover of Youngstown, and now Lorain looks set for a CEO to take over as early as January. The Chronicle-Telegram has just published an excellent, if not well overdue, article on the predictably awful results of this legislation in Youngstown, the ramifications for Lorain, and some interesting commentary on the mentality and goals behind the plan.

Consider the following quote from Lorain Rep Dan Ramos, "This plan is much worse than people think it is. The CEO has to come in and have a plan for the district to improve, but it also has to find a way to expand charter schools in the district. That’s actually part of the law and I’m terribly concerned that it’s been the plan all along. We have all of these brand new buildings that are perfect for someone to stick a charter school in.”

Exactly. The CEO arrives to "improve" education in your district by taking power from a locally elected school board, dismissing administrators, teachers, and other staff who have invested themselves in the community, and privatizing schools when improvement isn't evident.

For anyone who has watched this situation from the "safety" of their districts and said something like, "I'm glad I'm not Youngstown." or "At least we're not Lorain." You are. If we combine the language of this law with the reality of the new assessment system, every district except the most affluent are within 3-5 years of a CEO state takeover. I teach in Elyria, a district that has been cited by the ODE as close to a Youngstown or Lorain scenario. I teach in a new high school here, and along with many others worked diligently this fall to assure the passage of a bond issue to build all new elementaries and middle schools. According to the timelines of both of these things, it is conceivable that a state takeover and move to charter schools would be occurring at the same time as the completion of the first of those new buildings. Coincidence or not, this is an injustice I'm not prepared to accept.


 
The Ghost of Christmas Present, Paolo DeMaria

So, yesterday when I remembered that while billionaire Betsy's desire to "advance God's kingdom" in America's schools is a nightmare for public education, the current purveyors of atrocities are right here in Ohio. So, I decided to write Superintendent Paolo DeMaria. If you recall, the Superintendent put out a call for input on education in Ohio. DeMaria also has the power to step in and prevent a takeover in Lorain through a safe harbor that's been granted to every other Ohio district as the ODE has transitioned (read butchered) us through a roll out of new assessments. DeMaria was also given significant input by Lorain stakeholder's as to why they are, in fact, making progress. So, what gives Paolo?

Here's my note to the super.

Superintendent DeMaria,

I hope this note finds you well and in the holiday spirit. I was hoping you could answer a few questions for me. The first few are about your decision to take no action regarding the takeover of the Lorain Schools. It was in your power to provide safe harbor, especially considering that Lorain's poor scores, like those of the vast majority of public schools in Ohio, had more to do with the well documented problems with the new assessment system, subsequent statewide resistance, and implementation of new tests last year. Those tests, as you know, made use of questions developed out of state in such a short time frame that proof of validity would be impossible. Every other school had safe harbor due to these, and many other issues. Why not Lorain?

When you took on your position as state superintendent, I championed your desire to listen, to hear from Ohioans. I know for a fact that legislators from the area, members of the state appointed distress commission, and other stakeholders implored you to take the only action that seemed just in Lorain, a safe harbor. So, if you are making informed decisions, and I believe you intend to, who provided the input to the contrary of those who actually work in the district?

I hope that your expressed desire to make informed decisions can be evidenced in your forthcoming explanation. I say this because while I am disappointed by the outcome in Lorain, I know that there are dozens of districts (including mine) that are 3-5 years from takeover under the current assessment system. You and I met face to face in Elyria, where I teach, at an ESSA stakeholder meeting. According to the findings from those meetings, stakeholders like me want far fewer tests, federal minimums as a matter of fact, as well as an end to the use of assessments in making high stakes decisions like those that result in the state takeover of school districts. Do you and the ODE plan to advocate for dramatic changes in the assessment system as recommended by stakeholders?

I would like to indicate that these are not intended as rhetorical questions. I would appreciate an answer. Thank you for your time, and your service to education in Ohio.

Merry Christmas.
Matt Jablonski


 
The Ghost of Christmas Past, John Kasich

I hope to get a response, and if I do, I will let you know. Perhaps it will be as simple as, "I am the Ghost of Christmas Present." or "I am in the Governor's pocket." Maybe it will be more thoughtful. I'd like to believe that when he talked to me about the school year when we met in Elyria, and we shared a vision of a collaborative improvement of Ohio's schools based on ESSA input, he wasn't bullshitting me. We'll see.

In the mean time, let's not forget... We Are All Youngstown. We Are All Lorain. Senator Joe Schiavoni of Youngstown has crafted a piece of Legislation, SB 230  that tempers the most awful aspects of the Youngstown Plan and establishes more local involvement. Senate leadership relegated it to the Finance Committee, a quiet burial. However, it was heard, and if it receives two more hearings this week it can be voted on. Find some basic info on the bill and contact info for the Finance Committee here. Let them and your own legislators know that you demand a more reasonable plan.

Fight the good fight.
Merry Christmas.

Friday, November 18, 2016

That's (not) what she said.

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

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

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


 


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

 

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


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


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


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


 


Senator Lehner,

 

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

 

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

 

Thanks again for your reply and consideration.

Matt


 


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


 


Thank you Senator.

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

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

Matt Jablonski 

Tuesday, November 15, 2016

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

 

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

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

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

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

Senator Lehner, 

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

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

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

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



Superintendent DiMaria,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Matt Jablonski
American History Teacher
Elyria High School



Saturday, November 12, 2016

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

 


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I, for one, can't accept that.

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

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

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

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

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


Wednesday, October 26, 2016

Change the Graduation Requirement

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

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

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

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

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

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

 






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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sunday, October 9, 2016

One, Two, Three. End This.

























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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

End this.          

Sunday, September 25, 2016

Perspectives on Realism

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

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

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

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

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

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


"Other states have gone directly to a NAEP-like cut, which was pretty drastic," Jim Wright, the director of testing for the Ohio Department of Education, told the state board in June.
Wright said the department instead recommended scores that would show 50-60 percent of students as "proficient," instead of the 80 percent in previous years. He noted that Ohio would still have more "proficient" kids than NAEP says, but it would be "more realistic."
What we keep hearing is that these assessments are designed to measure mastery in a subject in order to assure that Ohio's kids are career and college ready. I'm confused. How does choosing a random percentage midway between the NAEP and our previous (OGT/OAA) scores indicate being on a path to college readiness? I'm only a teacher, not the director of testing for the ODE, but I'm thinking it doesn't. My instinct says that no series of standardized tests can measure college readiness.
In the meantime we're supposed to be grateful for the ODE's realism. I'm not. What Wright fails to recognize in this explanation is that their arbitrary NAEP, but not quite as drastic as NAEP lowering of proficiency numbers actually impacts kids. On an introspective or motivational level, those 40-50% of students earning "Basic" or "Limited" scores have just been labeled as failures. Worse yet, in the world of high stakes outcomes, those 40-50% of students who happen to be in 3rd grade are now in danger of not being promoted. The high school kids in this situation are not on pace to graduate. 
Talk to some high school kids about what is "realistic," Mr. Wright. Being prevented from graduating by bureaucrats despite years worth of effort does not qualify.
What's worse is that Wright himself expressed his concern about the impact of these new assessments on graduation, and now he seems to have forgotten all about it. According to the meeting minutes of the Ohio Technical Advisory Committee, January 26, 2016... 
Jim Wright noted that there are three pathways to high school graduation, but recognized that the new proficiency cuts for End of Course assessments will be challenging if used in defining high school graduation.
So, which is it, realistic or challenging? Realistically challenging, perhaps? For certain kids, anyway. Let's look at this from a different perspective.
A report released this week by the Ohio Education Policy Institute on the state report cards indicates (as it does every year) that Economically Disadvantaged Students perform far poorer on standardized tests than their wealthier counterparts. From the report...
This analysis is far from the first to demonstrate a strong negative correlation between student achievement and socioeconomic status. However, this data shows that in Ohio, the negative correlation between socioeconomic and student achievement has proven all too persistent over time.
The report uses the Performance Index, among many other measures, to make their point. For those unfamiliar, the study defines the PI in this way, "the Performance Index is an aggregate statewide assessment measure which takes into account the performance of each district’s students at the different performance levels (Advanced Plus, Advanced, Accelerated, Proficient, Basic, and Limited) across all of the tests. The maximum PI score is 120 (all students at “Advanced Plus” level)." As you can see in Table 1 below, the higher the percentage of Economically Disadvantaged Students, the lower the Performance Index.
While I'd like to give Jim Wright and the decision making team at the ODE the benefit of the doubt, if they're worth their salt as educational professionals, then they are very aware that impoverished students score poorly on standardized tests as a rule. So, assuming their knowledge of this data, they have either chosen to completely ignore it, or have purposefully chosen to label a far greater percentage of poor children as failures, hold back a disproportionate number of poor children in 3rd grade, and place a disproportionate number of impoverished students in danger of not graduating.
This decision making process is not "more realistic" as Jim Wright says, but is completely at odds with the reality of what these tests measure best, which is socioeconomic status. The state has chosen to fail kids on this measure.
The ODE is at best "Limited" in their ability to make decisions regarding the betterment of Ohio's education policy. In this case I would categorize them as "Basic." They have failed. Perhaps the standards that I'm holding them to are too rigorous, the expectations too high. Based on their own logic, I hope they will work harder, seek remediation, and achieve success.
A good start would be to stop pretending that there is a connection between these assessments and college and career readiness. Your next move would be to convince the legislature to eliminate all high stakes decisions from their link to standardized tests.

Sunday, September 18, 2016

Which Side Are You On?


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

Which side are you on?