Happy Birthday Standardized Tests!!!! Um...yeah.

My dad pointed out something to me on Facebook today: June 17 marks the 113th birthday of the American standardized test. I have to say that our country's education system has never really been the same since.

While China has had standardized tests for centuries, introducing them in America has been fraught with issues, which are well documented. The most important to me, frankly, is whether they actually predict future life success, or merely tell us who is set up to succeed in the first place.

For example, using an Excel regression analysis, I can predict 3 out of 4 Ohio school district standardized test performance ratings on the state's Performance Index Score. All I need to know is a district's percentage of children living in poverty, or their median income.

And despite the fact that American kids have never done well on international tests, the last 40-50 years has been dominated by the American economy (still #1 on GDP), we won the Cold War, and America has dominated the production of intellectual property.

So do these tests scores really tell us that we suck, or are in crisis? Do they tell us anything that's useful or predictive?

My son, who is 9, already has test anxiety because of the number and importance of these standardized tests. I'm seriously considering opting him out of future tests until high school.

However, not all testing is necessarily bad. Used to assess kids so teachers can better direct learning toward individual student needs is a great use, for example. Using them to assess teachers and classrooms? Not so obviously great.

However, I have great sympathy for the many parents I have met whose children were ignored until standardized testing -- and the accountability that came with them -- forced schools to pay attention and teach them. That has always been the standardized testing result that has kept me from advocating their immediate burning, though I certainly have a book of matches at the ready.

Then there's the promising work of Robert J. Sternberg, who was at Tufts University  for awhile (my alma mater -- shameless plug. By the way, we took him from Yale. How's that taste, New Haven?). Sternberg has developed tests that assess the creative, analytical and practical skills of students. One study from his work in the 1990s found that the students who did well on the analytical portion of the tests had the background of those who perform well on our standardized tests today -- more wealthy and white. However, on the creative and practical portions, the results showed a great mix of diverse socio-economic and cultural backgrounds. Other studies have verified those results.

Imagine if our high-stakes regime measured the other two categories? Maybe, then, traditionally low-performing Cleveland wouldn't qualify for Vouchers and Charters because their students do so well on creative and practical skills, while perhaps traditionally high-performing Hudson would qualify because their students don't?

Imagine that paradigm shift, eh?

As our testing regime becomes more high-stakes, and more importance is placed on succeeding on these things, perhaps it's time to develop tests that measure the whole student, not just their ability to analyze things and memorize. There's more to life than that, and there's more to schooling than that.

Until that happens, though, I fear all our testing regime will do is narrow curriculum, minimize the importance of the kind of thinking that can lead to true innovation and success, and force us into becoming a nation of rote learners who can't come up with ideas, but sure can tell you everything you need to know about someone else's.

Unless, that is, parents, administrators, teachers and others stand up and say, "No more!"

CA Court Whiffs on Key Question

A California judge ruled yesterday that so-called "first in, last out" teacher laws violate students' equal opportunity to have Great Teachers. And while many commentators have found this to be a much-needed repudiation of the "old guard" teacher labor paradigm, dominated by unions, I can say that as the son of a former teacher who actually would have been laid off under a "first in, last out" system at a newspaper, the ruling is amazing for its exceptional blind spot: 

We have no idea what a Great Teacher for these kids would look like. 

While there are scant few obviously Great and obviously Bad teachers, the overwhelming number are neither. Yet we act like there's a Platonic Form of a Great Teacher out there that will be Great for Every Kid in Every School, and the only thing standing between our kids and that Platonic ideal is a Teacher's Union.

But is that the case?

I mean, we all know that Aristotle was a Great Teacher for Alexander, but would Aristotle have been a Great Teacher in front of 60 kids, 7 times a day in an 8th Grade building on the South Side of Chicago, or in Boone County, West Virginia, or in Beverly Hills? 

I don't know. 

And this is the huge logical hole that remains at the core of all this "a Great Teacher for every kid" argument. We talk about Great Teachers like we know what one actually is, or some magic metric can tell us, or that we actually agree on the Platonic Form that teacher would take. It's a given that Great Teachers should be teaching our most at-risk kids just as frequently as our most privileged. However, the assumption many make is that Great Teachers for privileged students would be just as Great teaching at-risk kids. The ideal, Platonic teacher for one kid is the ideal for every kid, so goes the assumption.

Yet nothing could be less certain. Ask parents who request teachers for their kids based on sterling recommendations from well-respected friends and educators, then realize their kids aren't a match a month into what ends up being a very ordinary school year. 

Subjectivity in teacher quality is the wild card in determining teacher effectiveness. And sometimes, kids aren't aware of how Great their teachers are until far down their life road.

For example, I had two high school teachers that I really didn't like at the time. They demanded that I practice, work, study and do all the things an immature teenager doesn't want to do. I mean, I really hated going to Mr. Appling's music and Mrs. Pryce's French classes. Because I knew I hadn't done enough preparation to their standard, but I did enough to get by, so why wasn't that good enough? They're so mean!

Well, they knew I could do better. They expected more from me, even if I didn't expect it from myself.

Now, if you let me do a teacher evaluation of these two phenomenal teachers at the time, I would have excoriated them. I would have hammered them for their tough teaching styles and "unreasonable" expectations. And I wouldn't have been alone. Everyone I knew would have given them the same marks.

Today, I recognize that they were Great Teachers because they showed me how hard I had to work. But if they were being judged on student evaluations, as many want us to do, they wouldn't have lasted a year.

Likewise, I have witnessed teachers who spend their entire years drilling their students for state achievement tests, with very little other curriculum. Their kids will score off the charts and show great growth. They actually brag about how highly their students score. But is that a Great Teacher? Or is it just Great test preparation? Under the proposed tying teacher evaluation to test scores regime, those teachers will be considered Great Teachers. 

However, I beg to differ.

The more I think of what a Great Teacher is, the more I think of the famous quote from U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart when he described pornography: "I know it when I see it."

And what's even more complicated about evaluating teachers is one student's Aristotle is another's Elizabeth Halsey (look at IMDb for that reference). I can't tell you how often I would defend teachers I loved to classmates who hated them. And vice versa.

Adding more complication is that some Aristotles are Great Teachers in one environment and not so Great in others.

Some of the best teachers I ever had would have been far less successful in larger classes, for example, because they thrived on interactive discussions. I've had fantastic teachers in 300 student lectures, but they would have been not nearly as successful in smaller settings because they didn't like interaction at all.

Which brings me back to the California case. I have deep sympathy for kids who are in schools where they feel they're being denied access to the Great Teacher they deserve because of some outdated, union protection. But there is no guarantee that these "Great Teachers" will be Great teaching these students. They might even be worse. 

We just don't know.

The "first in, last out" paradigm is actually better than any we've come up with yet because it's about as objective as can be. It doesn't play favorites. It doesn't require a friendship with a principal. It doesn't force teachers to do combat with each other about who gets which kids so their test scores can be the highest on their evaluations.

Is it perfect? Far from it. It produces inequities. It lets go of good, great teachers even. But absent a truly substantive, thorough evaluation system, it's the best, most objective system we've got. That's why I didn't complain much about potentially being laid off at the newspaper I worked at because I was more junior than others. I didn't have to worry about whether I had a certain number of bylines, or whether my work led to a certain numbers of legislative changes. Or whether I won awards (which I did several times). Or whether I dangled too many participles. I just did my job the best I could, and if the economy wouldn't support my employment at the paper, so be it. 

That fact spurred me to go to law school so I would have something to fall back on if the layoffs did happen. Luckily, I found an exciting new career before the layoffs hit my level of seniority. 

Likewise, when you get into substantive evaluation of teaching excellence, it is so much more complicated than how a teacher's kids score on tests, or whether the kids like them, or whether the parents feel like the teachers are their friends. 

It's really, really complicated. Really.

The best system I can imagine is one that does take test scores, teacher and parent evaluations into some minor account, but is overwhelmingly driven by close evaluation by principals and lead teachers. They'll be best able to identify teachers who are best matched to each environment. 

It is through deep, meaningful evaluation that teachers will be placed most effectively in the classroom, or let go. However, without proper resources to accomplish these meaningful evaluations, principals will be stretched to their limits, evaluating teachers quickly because they simply don't have time to evaluate everyone the way they need to be. 

And that will lead to inequities as well, equally as egregious as the ones mentioned in the California case.

(Need I mention that the greatest inequity is how schools are funded? But that's another story for another day.)

The silver lining I see in the California case is this: It could force policymakers and educators to figure out a more thorough, meaningful evaluation system that provides a better, more complete picture of what a Great Teacher looks like for which kids, and where they're best placed. Yet without financial backing, I fear these systems won't be implemented properly, and we will have continued inequities in the system, with children being denied access to the Great Teacher they need and deserve.

Because right now, if you asked me, "What makes a Great Teacher?" I would have to give the Potter Stewart answer, with a twist:

I know it when I see it. Even if I don't realize it until 10 years later.

Another Day, Another FBI Raid of an Ohio Charter School

I have to admit, I'm kind of amazed by this. Apparently, the Concept Schools, which run Horizon Academies and other Charter Schools, primarily in Ohio, are under FBI investigation for issues with a federal grant meant to go toward upgrading technology in their buildings.

As I've said many times before, I'm not opposed to Charter Schools, just the way they operate in Ohio. I've been especially concerned about how the taxpayers can't find out how for-profit operators spend public dollars, and other transparency and accountability issues. Now, perhaps, you understand why.

In a non-scientific experiment, I did a simple Google search on "FBI Ohio Charter School" and here's what I found:

• The FBI looking into a Pittsburgh Charter for using money to build another operation in Youngstown.
• The FBI looking into a shady accountant who was the financial officer for several Charters.
• The FBI looking into the Mary L. Dinkins Charter for financial and academic irregularities.
• The FBI receiving the eventual conviction of a Dayton Charter CEO for stealing $1.8 million from his Charter School.
• An Ohio-based Charter consulting firm is raided by the FBI as part of the investigation into the Pennsylvania Charter Cyber School.

And those are just since 2011. The only story that popped up under "FBI Ohio 'Public School'" was the 2012 probe into alleged data scrubbing at several school districts.

Now Google searches aren't nearly as thorough as some other databases. But what you should notice is this FBI investigation stuff happens a lot more in Ohio's Charter School system than it's traditional public school system.

I'm just guessing here, but my guess as to why that is? Perhaps it's because people in traditional public schools operate in the open. People in Charter Schools do not. Sunshine is the best disinfectant, after all.

ODE Voucher Enrollment Increases Would Put Vouchers over $200 million Mark Next Year

The Ohio Department of Education announced preliminary Voucher enrollment figures for next school year. The increases would put the cost of the Voucher program well over $200 million. Not bad considering it was $99 million three years ago.

That was sarcasm.

Here is the Gongwer Ohio report on the announcement:

Vouchers: Applications that would use up more than 75% of the new income-based Educational Choice scholarships were submitted during this year's first application round, the Department of Education reported.The department said 3,209 students applied for the expanded voucher program, which will provide 4,000 scholarships to private schools for children in kindergarten and first grade whose families earn 200% of the federal poverty level or less.Last year only about 1,700 applied, which was when the expansion was only available for kindergarten students.Another application window will run July 1-31, according to the Department of Education.Submissions for the traditional EdChoice program that applies to persistently poor performing school buildings hit 18,228 in the first round of applications, up from 16,848 in that period last year. (See Gongwer Ohio Report, April 22, 2013)Applications totaled 18,723 after the second round last year. There are 60,000 available. (See Gongwer Ohio Report, August 14, 2013)ODE also reported that interest in the Cleveland Scholarship and Tutoring Program - which provides vouchers just for Cleveland Municipal School students - totaled 7,677 applicants. The Jon Peterson Special Needs Scholarship had 3,295 applicants."School Choice Ohio is here to help families learn about all their education options, including the state's scholarship programs," School Choice Ohio Senior Director of Programs Sarah Pechan-Driver said. "We have several school choice counselors on staff who help parents navigate what can be an overwhelming maze of options, and we couldn't be happier to hear that so many families are finding a great school that is a great fit for their child." 

We have easily accessible average per pupil data for this school year on Peterson, EdChoice and the Autism Vouchers. As of the latest funding report, EdChoice and Peterson account for $96.4 million of the Voucher cost. Given these reported increases, at this school year's average per pupil cost, that amount will be $123.8 million -- a $27 million increase.

When accounting for the total Voucher loss, as well as additional, non-deduction payments contained in the 2013-2014 budget, this school year will see about $175 million in public dollars going to private schools. Add the $27 million additional just in two of the state's 4-5 Voucher programs (depending on how you count them), and there will be well over $200 million in public money sent to private schools next year, including a sizeable chunk of State Lottery money, which I don't remember Ohioans voting for in order to fund private schools.

Oh, and if the same approximately 13% increase in Voucher enrollments happens during the next month, like it did last year, according to Gongwer, then add another $10 million to the $27 million increase, just in EdChoice Vouchers.

The state's Voucher programs have turned into another School Choice budget hog (like Charter Schools), with little evidence to suggest that, overall, the program provides children with better opportunities than they would have in the traditional public schools. Vouchers used to mean children in only about 35 districts lost money. Now it's children in 464 districts.

So while the Ohio Department of Education and School Choice Ohio seem to think that removing $200 million of our tax dollars from public schools to send to private schools is good news, I'm thinking that the 90% of parents in this state whose kids remain in the public schools with $200 million fewer resources will think differently.

But that's just a guess.

Ohio Touts National Commendation for New Ohio Report Card, Ignores Award State Won from Them in 2009

The Ohio Department of Education made a big deal today of a report from the Education Commission of the States rating Ohio's new Report Card as one of the country's top 3. That's great news, I suppose. Here's the thing.

In 2010, Ohio won the nation's top award from ECS for the country's most "bold, innovation and nonpartisan" education reform of the year in 2009. Yet nowhere on the ODE website is there a mention of the state winning the top education reform of the year.

In fact, at the time the award was won, the Ohio Senate's Education Finance Chairman instead wrote a letter to ECS requesting that the organization take back the award:

Then State Sen. Gary Cates called the award "blatantly political", I suppose because it was awarded in 2010, which is a gubernatorial election year. I don't see any Democrats claiming the same of this ECS award during this gubernatorial year.

No matter. Here's now Senior Vice Chancellor Cates' email: gcates@regents.state.oh.us Write and ask him if he's willing to write a similar letter this year, casting aspersions upon ECS' motives in granting Ohio this award.

I would hate to think that ODE is ashamed that the state won a national award from the Education Commission of the States for education funding and policy reforms. Perhaps it's because the current leadership doesn't want anyone to remember that the Evidence Based Model of school funding, which was passed primarily by Democrats, even existed. Or that the last year of the model provided the first instance on record of the state providing more money for education than local property taxes.

Either way, it's pretty clear that the politicization of the Department is well entrenched.

How sad.

Spending More on Education Makes a Difference. No Kidding.

The National Bureau of Economic Research concluded in a new paper that schools that spend more money have better outcomes for economically disadvantaged kids.

Here's the meat of the findings from NBER, which looked at education funding changes from 1955-2011:

Event-study and instrumental variable models reveal that a 20 percent increase in per-pupil spending each year for all 12 years of public school for children from poor families leads to about 0.9 more completed years of education, 25 percent higher earnings, and a 20 percentage-point reduction in the annual incidence of adult poverty.

The study concludes that between 2/3 and 100% of all the outcome gaps between kids raised in poor and non-poor homes can be eliminated with this spending increase.

Now, I know that here in Ohio, some pretty prominent education policymakers have argued that schools get enough money, or don't need more, or even would do better with less. But that's not what 56 years of data would suggest. It would suggest that removing $515 million from the classroom will have a deleterious effect upon the state's most at-risk youth.

It also calls into question conservative education policy guru Eric Hanushek's long-held conclusion that "Today the existing knowledge base does not ensure that any added funds will, on average, be spent wisely. That is true even if some schools may spend their funds wisely." 

Perhaps America's schools have been spending money more wisely than Hanushek gives them credit for. (By the way, in Ohio, Charter Schools spend far more on administration than school districts, so who's spending wisely in this state?) With only a 20% greater investment in addressing poverty, we've had 25% higher earnings and 20% reduction in poverty. Imagine if that percentage were 30-40%?

But when you can argue that up is down and down is up, I suppose these kinds of facts and realities don't matter anymore.

Finally, I'll leave you with this: When can we stop studying whether the sky is blue? Does anyone really think that money doesn't matter in education funding? Does anyone seriously believe that the answer is less money?

Until we have politicians who are willing to spend what needs to be spent for our kids to succeed, I suppose we're going to continue burning intellectual capital on reinforcing that most common of common sense truisms: You Get What You Pay For.

School Choice Ohio Sends Me A Flier Touting Vouchers

I went to my mailbox today and found something remarkable: A notice from School Choice Ohio telling me that I could get $4,250 a year for my kindergartner to attend a private school as long as I was part of a low-income or middle class family. And the best thing? I will be able to keep the voucher for Carson to attend private school all the way through high school!

Except, if I did that, it would leave my other son, Logan, with less money and opportunities because he would remain in the public schools, though it's being directly funded with state lottery money for now -- money that would have otherwise gone to Logan. But no matter.

Hey, that's fair, right?

Here's the mailing:

Last year, we reported at Innovation Ohio that middle class families would qualify for this expansion, with families earning $94,000 a year qualifying for a partial amount. The School Choice Ohio flier says if my family made $47,100, Carson would qualify.

Vouchers have exploded under the current Governor, from $99 million before he took office to more than $175 million this year. With the efforts of School Choice Ohio, we can only expect those numbers to grow larger. And remember that with each Voucher, less money is left for children who are not taking the Voucher, forcing all of us to have to vote for more property taxes or accept cuts in services to our children.