The Education Gadfly Weekly

Ohio is moving to new standardized tests, the PARCC assessments, which are set to commence in spring 2015. These new and vastly different tests pose big challenges. For one, unlike the paper-and-pencil exams of the past, the PARCC is designed for online administration, leading to obvious questions about schools’ technical readiness to administer the exams.[1] In addition, as Cleveland’s Plain Dealer reported recently, PARCC test results may be released later than usual in 2015—likely delaying the release of school report cards. At the same time, no one knows exactly where PARCC will set its cut-scores for “proficiency” and other achievement levels.[2] Finally, expect political blowback, too, when lower test scores are reported under PARCC, perhaps even stronger than the ongoing skirmishes around Ohio’s new learning standards.

Despite these complications, Ohioans should give PARCC a chance. Ohio needs a higher-quality state assessment to replace its mostly rinky-dink tests of yesteryear. Take a look at PARCC’s test-item prototypes; they ask students to demonstrate solid analytical skills based on what they know in math and English language arts. The upshot: PARCC’s more-sophisticated approach to assessment could put an end to the “test-prep” instruction that has infiltrated too many American classrooms. As Laura Slover, CEO of PARCC, has argued:

The PARCC assessments mark the end of “test prep.” Good instruction will be the only way to truly prepare students for the assessments. Memorization, drill and test-taking strategies will no longer siphon time from instruction. As students work through well-constructed problems, they are asked to draw upon what they’ve learned and apply it to solve problems.

What can be done to help the implementation of PARCC in the coming days? Here are a few ideas:

1. Help people grasp changes to how achievement is reported. PARCC has stated its intent to set a cut-score designating whether a student is on-track for “college and career readiness.” This designation should become the new student-achievement standard, much in the way that “proficient” has been the standard in recent years. But with a more-stringent achievement standard coming into place, people should also brace for a fall in “proficiency” rates. Policymakers and school leaders must emphasize that the drop in proficiency does not mean that student achievement has collapsed overnight. Rather, drops in proficiency are a function of PARCC’s higher bar and expectations.

2. Underscore the importance of honest reporting of results. To its credit Ohio, along with other states, has shifted to a results-oriented approach to evaluating public schools. In fact, the Buckeye State has created one of the nation’s best school report cards, packed with information about school and student performance. The new assessments will build momentum toward a results-driven system by providing a more candid view of student performance (see point 1 above). In fact, under PARCC, all of Ohio’s communities will get a clear picture of how many students are actually on track for post-high school success. Even complacent middle-class communities, where state tests have been routinely ignored, might be stirred to more closely scrutinize their schools’ results. (Under the outgoing assessment and accountability system, 80–90 percent students in wealthier districts reached “proficient,” not exactly a feather in their cap.) The results from PARCC could jump-start productive discussions, in all areas of the state, about how to improve schooling.

3. Invest in technology, if needed. Public schools have been upgrading their technological infrastructure for the past few years. But it is still unclear whether these upgrades in broadband and hardware have been enough. Do all schools have the technology they need to ensure online access and test security? Do all students have access to a device they know how to use? And does the state have the information systems it needs to collect, process, and store test data in a timely and secure way? We’ve witnessed failures in schools’ deployment of technology and information systems. (For instance, John Deasy, Los Angeles public schools’ chief, is resigning in part due to high-profile technology flops.) The lesson: Technological implementation must not be taken for granted. The first couple years of online testing could prove difficult, technology-wise. State and local leaders should keep a close watch on the needs of schools—help should be given, and investments should be made, if needed.

4. Refrain from fiddling with state law regarding assessments. A recent bill was introduced in the Ohio House that seeks to restrict, at four hours, the time allotted to a particular grade-level test (House Bill 629).  The problem with this provision is that PARCC allows students, if they need it, more than four hours total to complete the assessment. (The maximum allotted time varies across grades and subjects—typically between 4.5 to 6.0 hours. The entire assessment is divided into four or five testing blocks.) The proposal floated here could cause more problems than it solves. What happens to students who need the full time allotment; why should they be penalized? (Some students might be slower test-takers than others.[3]) Meanwhile, could this provision create undesirable side effects on the assessment design? Could it reduce the amount of essay writing or constructed-response items required of students under PARCC? Could it cause a relapse into multiple-choice tests in order to fit an arbitrary time constraint?

State lawmakers shouldn’t micromanage test administration, especially when the test hasn’t even been given. They could set off damaging, unintended consequences. Meanwhile, policymakers should be mindful that the time needed to take PARCC—roughly ten hours per year, in math and English language arts—is just a small fraction of a school year (around 2 percent).[4] Students, I suspect, spend at least that much time twiddling their thumbs in “study hall,” updating Facebook accounts in “computer lab,” or standing in the lunch line. Let’s straighten our priorities: Testing students’ knowledge and abilities, in math and English, is essential. And let’s be honest, too, there’s time in the school year to do it right. 

***

Assessment is the drab side of schooling. Hardly a test was ever enjoyed by a student. And understandably, parents don’t want their children taking tests all day, every day. But high-quality assessments are crucial. Parents, educators, taxpayers, and policymakers need to know how students are faring against a tough standard on a challenging exam. To this end, Ohioans everywhere should give PARCC every opportunity to prove its worth in the days ahead.

In his recent State of the Schools speech, Cleveland Metropolitan School District (CMSD) CEO Eric Gordon referred to a 2013 column in the Plain Dealer comparing him to the ancient Greek king Sisyphus. As every school kid used to know, Sisyphus rolled a boulder up a mountain each day, only to watch it roll back down. He was doomed to spend the rest of eternity repeating this pointless task as a punishment for his greed and deceit—a kind of Greek myth Groundhog Day. 

The comparison of Gordon and Sisyphus is unfair. The punishment of Sisyphus, at its heart, is one constructed to impose hopelessness and despair. There is certainly much work to be done in Cleveland, but as we at Fordham have pointed out before (see here) there are also reasons to be hopeful about Cleveland’s progress. There is no room for Sisyphus in the fight to improve Ohio schools.

That being said, the English teacher in me appreciates the allusion. It even got me thinking about other ancient figures who might better symbolize the Buckeye state’s struggle to give its kids the best education—an education that all students deserve, but far too few receive. There’s the story of Orpheus, a legendary musician and the son of one of the infamous Muses, who stumbled upon his wife’s body soon after her death. Devastated, he played a song on his lyre that was so mournfully profound that Hades decided to allow Orpheus to take Eurydice from the underworld and back up to the land of the living. There was a catch, of course: Orpheus had to walk in front of Eurydice, and could not look back at her until they reached the human world. It was the ultimate test of patience and perseverance and Orpheus, the only man to ever successfully soften the heart of Hades, failed. Instead of waiting until Eurydice had reached the upper world with him, Orpheus turned to look at her once he had reached it—and subsequently lost his wife forever. 

The story of Orpheus and its accompanying lesson of patience could apply to any number of education reforms happening in the Buckeye state. The Common Core parallel is clearest. We’ve all heard the facts: Ohio led the way in establishing the need for higher standards. Ohioans had opportunities to give feedback as the standards were developed. Educators have explained how Common Core is working in classrooms (also here , here, and here). Support for Common Core in Ohio is diverse and widespread.  Many arguments against Common Core have proven to be misleading. Ohio newspapers have fact-checked these arguments and proven them false while showcasing other Ohioans who support Common Core. For four years, districts have made the arduous journey through change and implementation. Like Orpheus, Ohio committed to a second chance—an opportunity to hold all students to rigorous standards (and to end the reality of a 40 percent college remediation rate and the abysmal 32 percent of Ohio ACT takers who are college ready). House Bill 597 and the repeal hearings have been called a “circus,” but the push to repeal the standards also represents the temptation to stop too soon and negate all the hard work that’s been done thus far. Ohio faces the same metaphorical choice Orpheus did: Keep going and reap rewards, or turn back and lose what we’ve earned.

Other states have done what Orpheus did. They have second guessed their commitment at the last moment and turned around. To be clear, I’m not saying that the states that have backed out of the Common Core have lost their children forever. That’s hyperbolic and unfair. States do, by law, have the right to choose their academic standards. But these states have willingly plummeted themselves into chaos, and their students are paying the price. Take Missouri, for instance. A law signed by Governor Jay Nixon in July replaces the Common Core with “home-grown” expectations for students. The law establishes eight committees that are responsible for studying four subjects (English, math, science, history, and government), with one group focusing on lower grades and the other on higher grades. The committees were designed to create new standards. The problem is that committee meetings are so contentious that they’re not accomplishing anything. Instead of working together to establish high expectations for kids, adults are recording videos on their cell phones, taking calls in the middle of committee meetings to solidify talking points, storming out of meetings, and throwing around words like “hijack”, “bullied”, and “bloodbath.” To say the committees are hostile is an understatement. The new standards are supposed to be done in a year, but these committees have a long way to go if they’re actually going to meet that deadline.

In Ohio, Academic Content Standards Review Committees will soon meet to review our K–12 academic standards. This is necessary and important. If the committees decide that certain standards should be added or altered, then that’s what should happen. (Hopefully, Ohio will do a better job than Missouri of facilitating productive, respectful committees.) Improving on the standards that Ohio schools have worked with for four years is a step forward; it’s not the equivalent of Orpheus looking back.  The Orpheus mistake would be a complete repeal, leading to chaos. For proof of that, all Ohio has to do is look at other repeal states. Indiana lawmakers repealed the Common Core, only to rush to replace it with standards that are entirely similar to the Common Core. South Carolina faced a similar problem when the executive director of the Education Oversight Committee flat-out admitted that they “don’t have time” to do a total rewrite. Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal's Common Core lawsuit—deemed by many as nothing more than a political stunt from a presidential hopeful—threw Bayou State classrooms into total chaos. Oklahoma reverted back to its old standards, only to find that its own universities couldn't validate them as college and career ready. Ohio repeal proponents have tried to sidestep these problems and failed—they’ve set their sights on Massachusetts standards (which Massachusetts ditched in favor of Common Core), followed by Ohio “home-grown” standards (which forces schools to adhere to three sets of standards in five years) and have already caused many to question the bias in their plans. (As a side note, while there may not be any role models for how to repeal Common Core, there are certainly those who are capable of showing us how to make the standards work.)  

The disorder that teachers and students are dealing with in other states is troubling. The fact that Ohio lawmakers seem willing to thrust their own state into that mess is inexcusable. Ohio can do better. If lawmakers wish to avoid the descent into chaos, they would do well to learn a lesson from Orpheus: Keep moving forward, but don’t look back.  

On September 19, teachers in the Columbus suburb of Reynoldsburg went out on strike for the first time since 1978. They started the school year without a contract in place, and neither two-party negotiations nor third-party mediation led to a breakthrough.

The initial contract offer from the district included a couple of notions that were thought by outside commentators to be problematic, including performance-based pay for teachers and the elimination of health care coverage in favor of a cash payment that teachers could use to buy their own coverage. As divisive as those issues could have been, they were actually pretty well hammered out before the walkout. The sticking point turned out to be a hard cap on class sizes.

With little movement on either side on this issue—and after dueling unfair labor practice charges were filed—the strike began. Day One was rough, but by the end of the first full week the feared “spillover” effects of the strike were not seen at Friday night’s big football game. But those Day One stories moved one district parent to sue to close the schools for the duration of the strike, citing concerns for student safety.

However, the Franklin County Common Pleas Court judge receiving the expedited case had a trick up his sleeve. Rather than ruling immediately, he ordered all parties into mandatory mediation behind closed doors and under a gag order. So what was the trick? While the judge couldn’t force the groups to negotiate the contract, he could sit them down without the constant media hype to talk about the school safety case at hand. And if they happened to work out the contract at the same time, all the better for everyone involved.

And so it was that during a media blackout and mediated sessions that a new contract was signed after teachers had spent fifteen days on the picket lines.

A couple of issues remained on the other side of the return to work; we’ll leave to others to determine if there was a “winner” or a “loser” in the battle, but certainly it was difficult for us to watch this play out in a district whose innovations we have championed. Even worse, it may not be the last labor dispute to hit Ohio schools this year.

Polls of parental attitudes about education can give guidance to those of us researching, dissecting, and commenting on education issues—clueing us in on issues of concern and, more importantly, helping framing those issues in ways which resonate with the general public. Education Post, a newish education-based communications network whose mission is to “cut through the noise” and to foster “straight talk,” published just such a poll earlier this month. As similar efforts have shown, poll respondents (1,800 “school parents” nationwide) feel better about their own children’s education than they do about the “education system” at large. Eighty-four percent of parents were either “very satisfied” or “somewhat satisfied” with their child’s school. But when asked about the education system broadly, 60 percent thought there were “some changes” that needed to be made, while 33 percent thought that the system needed a “complete overhaul.” A mere 3 percent of respondents thought that the system was “fine as is.” When asked about specific changes to improve “the system,” 88 percent supported “higher standards and a more challenging curriculum,” 78 percent supported “expanding the number of charter schools so parents have more options,” 93 percent supported “more accountability for teachers and principals,” and 84 percent supported “teacher evaluations that use test scores, classroom observations, and surveys from parents and students to help teachers improve.” In short, education reformers’ current interests are all namechecked and given support with the polling data. But this latest poll is no more likely to be reformers’ manna from heaven than previous such polls were. Education Post posits that the support for reform breaks down in the rhetoric and the approach. For example, the term “reform” was considered by respondents as antagonistic toward parents and their schools and would be better replaced with the term “improvement.” And while it is important to know how to explain “improvements” to those living with them, it could just be semantics—how the question is asked determines the response in some measure. Personally, I’m with the good folks in Cleveland who seem to have found the right balance between “reform” and “improvement”; they’ve called it the Cleveland Plan.

SOURCE: Education Post poll, national attitudes around education issues, improvements and institutions, conducted by Douglas E. Schoen, LLC, Education Post, October 9, 2014

Isabel Sawhill is the founder of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, an effort from which she draws much of the impetus for her latest book: Generation Unbound. She reviews decades of research and literature to support the notion that “traditional” patterns of education, marriage, and parenting—in that order—are a thing of the past, especially in the lives of low-income individuals. Delayed parenting—one of the pillars of the “success sequence” that some education pundits espouse—is largely nonexistent in impoverished communities, where we fervently believe education can do so much to help break the cycle of poverty. Sawhill notes that these are facts of modern life, like it or not (a traditionalist, she seems not to like them very much). Ideologues on the left argue for more social support for unmarried parents; those on the right for a return to traditional marriage. Sawhill posits a third way—foregrounding the various downsides of single parenthood, providing as much information about and access to long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs) as possible, and even incentivizing their promotion and use. With this “split the difference” approach, sure to be controversial with many, she believes that many young people who would otherwise simply drift into parenthood instead become “planners” who are able to put their own education and stability first before bringing children into the equation. While Sawhill focuses mainly on economic and equity issues in her book, education is never far from the narrative, especially when the topic of young people in poor neighborhoods is being discussed. Sawhill’s solution may not be widely received, but it will hopefully focus attention and generate fresh ideas for education reformers on how to get and keep students on a path to success.

SOURCE: Isabel V. Sawhill, Generation Unbound: Drifting into Sex and Parenthood without Marriage, Brookings Institution Press, 2014