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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Test Hours under the current graduation assessments: 25.5

Minus Test Hours required by the OGT: 12.5

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

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

(Alternate correct answer: Bullshit.)

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

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

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

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

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

My email to the State Super...

State Superintendent DeMaria,

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

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

Matthew T. Jablonski

My email to the Committee Chairs...

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

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

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

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

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

Matthew T. Jablonski

"Certificate of Attendance?!" or "Another Rambling Argument In Which the Author Makes His Case Regarding the Graduation Requirement" or "Paolo Did What!?" or "I'm not sure how much longer I can go on like this..."

  "We don't want to lower our graduation requirements."

Let me begin by admitting that I'm finding it difficult to wrap my mind around the confirmation of an unqualified advocate of plagiarism to a position of educational leadership at the federal level. I also cannot make sense of another Kasich budget proposal that swaps tax cuts for the wealthy for the well being of Ohio's children through cuts to public school funding, or increases that don't even keep pace with inflation. To be honest, I'm still taking deep breaths to quell the rage inside over the ODE's ESSA plan that completely ignored stakeholder input, though it was great to get an invite to a webcast Q & A on ESSA until I realized it was scheduled for today at one while I, and every other damn teacher in Ohio was TEACHING! Thanks for the "unvitation" Superintendent DeMaria. Which is to say, thanks for nothing.

If the rumors coming out of the Graduation Workgroup are true, thanks for nothing there as well, Paolo. Word has it that DeMaria prohibited a discussion of the assessments at the first meeting, and then brought in a rep from the American Institutes for Research (the company that sells us the tests) to explain the value of the assessments at the second meeting. I can't figure out why DeMaria is the facilitator. It was my understanding that the State Board tasked him with forming the group, not running it. Perhaps he wants to assure that the Workgroup's recommendations align with the ESSA plan so that he and the ODE can celebrate their openness to suggestions and then not do shit about the problem.

Contrary to that thesis is some recent information from Columbus suggesting that a "Certificate of Attendance" is being discussed as a solution for the graduation problem. When used, this replacement for a diploma is typically provided to those who are unable to participate in a typical high school experience, very often due to disability. That is not the situation in which our high school students find themselves, which makes this proposal completely unacceptable. 

The "problem" is less one of student participation or performance, than a gross mismanagement of, which led to instability within, the assessment system. Whether it was the use of two testing windows, widespread public opposition to PARCC, the subsequent switch to AIR, discrepancies in scores between paper/pencil vs computer test takers, the state board's ineffective manipulation of cut scores, not to mention the long researched issues regarding the limitations of data from standardized test performance, this system has in no way served students. Offering a "Certificate of Attendance" for the inability to find success in this abysmal system is insulting. It will provide no benefit at all, and seems to blame students for a situation largely out of their control.

It also has some very real ramifications  Students in this situation will find themselves unable to enlist in the military. The certificate also prevents them from applying for federal financial aid. Because research has shown that standardized test performance has a strong negative correlation with relative poverty, we will be creating a situation where the students who struggle most on the assessments, the kids most in need of financial aid, are unable to even apply for the assistance. Students who before might have needed remediation courses at the start of their college career will now find themselves unable to afford any training for future employment. 

Those who would argue that a student unable to pass a state test is not college ready are not looking at the full ramifications of the decision to prohibit diplomas to all but assessment savvy students. They are also assuming a correlation between scores on standardized assessments and college readiness. Because this testing system in Ohio is so new, longitudinal studies on this are non-existent. However, even if a correlation exists, I would propose that if these standardized tests are in fact a predictor of college readiness, and those standardized tests show a strong negative correlation with economic status as years of data has already proven, then couldn't we simply use poverty rates or median income as our predictor of college readiness? Or do we need to spend millions of dollars more on standardized assessments to tell us what we already know, which is that poor kids perform poorly when compared to their affluent peers? 

I would propose limiting standardized assessments to the federal minimums, and diverting the millions of dollars saved into programs that help to remediate the effects of poverty, like after school and mentoring programs, access to medical and dental, as well as counseling services. This, of course, would require an approach to ESSA that saw the state actually doing something to promote student achievement.

What we have done in Ohio, as well as nationally, is to place far too much stock in a student's performance on a standardized test. Those most resistant to reducing the weight of assessments on graduation seem unwilling to recognize the accomplishments of students outside of those tests. On a basic level, 6 of the 7 high school assessments are completed by the end of 10th grade (barring excessive and unnecessary retakes). Students participate in 2 more years of coursework after that point. To hear critics of the demand to adjust the graduation requirements, students do nothing of value outside of the tested subjects.

From another perspective, the tests themselves include only a snapshot of the whole of the curriculum covered. In the course I teach, American History, a student might gravitate toward material related to Civil Rights based upon their interest, but build less connection with Historic Documents. If test makers weight the Documents greater than Civil Rights, this student is at a disadvantage regardless of the time, effort, or remediation undertaken. Furthermore, even within Civil Rights, a given student's area of expertise, they may be drawn to the direct action of Dr. King and the SCLC, but test makers may decide to focus instead on federal legislation or the role of Lyndon Johnson. Obviously, this creates significant problems in determining student "proficiency" which Ohio law says is necessary for graduation. While the above scenario is anecdotal, educators who advocate a Constructivist approach would argue that "standardization" is quite contrary to student learning.

The reality is that the graduation requirement, as it exists, heavy with assessment, does not promote or even recognize activities that build the soft skills more vital to success in college and the workplace. I'm referring to things like communication and cooperation, teamwork, empathy, the ability to discover credible information and use it to solve problems. These skills are promoted through cooperative, project-based learning (nearly impossible in a standardized system). Involvement in student government, clubs and activities, theater and other arts programs, and athletics, also develop these things. Other students hone these skills through internships, employment, or in service to their communities. ALL of these things, and more, make up the whole of the high school experience. Despite this, policy makers have placed an inordinate weight on an innately flawed assessment system. 

The level of participation by the typical high school student makes the idea of issuing "Certificates of Attendance" insulting. They are deserving of a better system. They are deserving of a diploma.

State leaders need to come to terms with the fact that our current graduation requirements, the 3 Paths, are failed policy. It's alright to admit this failure. We have an opportunity to learn from these mistakes, just as we ask Ohio's students to learn from theirs as a vital part of their education. The graduation requirement can be fixed in such a way as to value the legitimate work that students apply to their education. Whether we minimize the points necessary from test scores in order to graduate, provide opportunities to earn points through other achievements unmeasurable by assessments, or otherwise decrease the weight of assessment performance as it relates to graduation, we owe this to our students. We owe them more than a meaningless attendance certificate. 

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

 Superintendent DeMaria listens to input on ESSA.

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

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

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

The ODE's response...

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

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

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

Politician: "We are looking into that issue."

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

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

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

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

A word about the Graduation Requirement...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Gunlock responds as I grow weary of his unfounded rhetoric.

As an act of civic engagement in honor of the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday, I wrote what I believed to be a well thought out and researched email to Ohio School Board members regarding the imminent "Graduation Crisis." In it, I encouraged them to keep a close eye on the State Superintendent's Graduation Workgroup, and to be sure to protect Ohio's most vulnerable students. I have included this email first.

When I sent the email, I did not anticipate hearing from anyone, least of all the most vocal of the opponents of adjusting the graduation requirement. Much to my surprise, Kasich appointee and former State School Board President Tom Gunlock responded with his usual talking points, but also a surprising vitriol in which he questioned my (and all Ohio teachers, administrators, and school personnel) ability to provide a quality education. Not only did I find his message absolutely without the research to back it up, but terribly insulting. Mr. Gunlock's email is included second.

Outraged at the typical unfounded attack on teachers and public education that you'd think I'd be used to by now, I penned a reply to Mr. Gunlock. This is included last. Please read this exchange of ideas. Having done so, if you feel the need to contact Board Member Gunlock, his contact information is as follows...

Tom Gunlock

tom.gunlock@education.ohio.gov

(937)291-6318

 First: My initial email to Mr. Gunlock and the Board.

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

On the eve of the first meeting of the Superintendent's Graduation Workgroup, I felt it was important to contact you regarding the gravity of the situation and to reiterate some facts that have been largely ignored in this conversation regarding the graduation requirement. Most important among these is the fact that there is absolutely no federal requirement for graduation to be tied to standardized tests. Ohio is one of only 13 states to require this, and through a testing system that has undergone significant changes over the past three years.

We are told by advocates of the system at the state level that this "increased rigor" is necessary because our students have been found lacking in work skills, and been in dire need of remediation when entering college. The problem is that evidence doesn't back this up. Ohio's students score above the national average on the ACT. Furthermore, according to a report published in January of last year by the Ohio Department of Higher Education, the college remediation rates dropped from 37% to 32% from 2014 to 2015.

As for work skills, a recent survey of business leaders by Forbes indicated the following as the top 5 qualities of graduates: being able to work as a team, decision making, communication skills, organizational management, and the ability to obtain information. What is significant here is that these are not qualities that can be measured by a standardized assessment. 

The reality in Ohio is that we are preparing to refuse a diploma to 30% of our students statewide. In urban areas like the one in which I teach, the rate of non-graduates will be far higher, 40-70% depending on the city. We are punishing students to solve nonexistent problems, with an unproven assessment system that cannot measure the soft skills students need to be successful in college and on the job.

We've been told that the 3 paths to graduation will solve the graduation problem, but the viability of the multiple paths is a myth. The WorkKeys path reaches terribly few vocational students, and those who can earn a remediation free score on the ACT are the same students who are on pace to graduate through the state assessment path. Three paths are a misnomer if fewer students graduate.

I understand that the Workgroup plans to analyze the situation, and suggest possible solutions by April. Unfortunately, I am not confident that there is much interest in protecting Ohio's most vulnerable students from being excluded from a diploma, those who earn their education at Ohio's urban high schools. State leaders have suggested that they anticipate graduation rates stabilizing over time. My students at Elyria High School and I have no interest in "rates stabilizing" over time because for us this isn't an issue of rates, but an issue that impacts our students, classmates, and friends.

Please consider these things, and do not lose sight of the fact that you are weighing-in on people's lives as you make decisions regarding the graduation requirement. My students and thousands of others across the state are counting on you. If you need the sources to legitimize the information that I have provided here, or if there is anything else that I can do to be of assistance, please let me know.

Yours in education.

Matthew T. Jablonski

 Second: Mr. Gunlock's thoughtful (if not hurtful) response. Copied and pasted. All grammatical errors, lack of appropriate punctuation, and incoherence are included here as written.

I need some help here.  In your opinion is an education more important or is receiving a diploma more important.  From your letter I will assume that in your opinion it is the latter.  If indeed that is the case then lowering the cut score to a 7 would be the answer to the problem.  To receive a 7 which is one point on each of the 7 exams the students would need to sign their name and "attempt" 5 questions.  We would then have close to 100 percent graduation and we could all feel great about ourselves.  Or maybe we could actually educate our kids.  Currently kids graduate by receiving the 20 credits and taking and passing an 8th grade test in the tenth grade.  We expect them to pass this test by the time they graduate.  Most citizens in this state believe that those who receive a diploma have a 12th grade education but in fact they have at least an 8th grade education.  So now we want those who receive a diploma to have at least a 10th grade education at a very minimum level.  In fact all the cut scores to be proficient is below 50 percent and a student only needs to be proficient in four of the 7 exams.  So that means that they can score at the basic level on three exams and still graduate.  As an example  the cut score for the geometry exam at the basic level is 22 percent.  Sad but true.  I know something will be adjusted to help the adults look good because that is what we always do.  Instead of holding adults and that includes the parents accountable for the performance of the kids we will dumb down the requirements until it no longer matters.  Kids will continue to graduate with a diploma that means they have at least an 8th grade education.  Employers will continue to struggle to find employees who are qualified and we adults will slap ourselves on the back and say what a great job we are doing.  It is sad that we cannot teach our kids to be low performing 10 graders in very basic subjects but  since the Strickland administration passed HB 1 in 2009 I guess we have proved that case.

Thank you for your email.

 Third: My reply regarding his accusations.

Mr. Gunlock,

The failing in your thinking, and that of those like you, is that you believe we are not educating Ohio's students because you have little to no experience in education. You also believe that your standardized assessments are measuring something that has to do with career and college readiness.

Please provide documentation and data regarding the validity of your claims as they relate to the current assessments, including grade level implications and the validity and reliability of the tests themselves.

Please provide documentation from employers regarding the lack of employee skills, as I have only heard this claim from you and your peers.

Then, please provide a research based argument that illustrates how standardized tests elevate the level of a child's education, and bridge educational gaps.

Diplomas are meaningful because teachers like myself work very hard to educate equally hard working students in American History and other core subjects. We teach skills vital to student success like critical thinking, communication, teamwork, and organizational management. I resent your implication that I am not doing my job, and would encourage you to contact my students, their parents, or administration in my district if this is, in fact, your implication.

I'll look forward to the evidence you're able to provide me on these issues. This is an opportunity for you as an educational leader in this state (however appointed) to model the academic skills you claim to be promoting in your assessment system. Until you can provide a data driven argument, as opposed to your usual rhetoric and talking points, I will continue to believe that standardized testing is meaningless, along with Ohio's accountability system.

Thank you for your email.

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."

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."

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.