Is the College Ready Crisis Overblown?

Buried in a Dispatch article about the failings of ECOT is news that one of the tests used to measure whether students headed to college required remedial classes was useless

For years, the Compass test determined which classes students should take when they enrolled at Columbus State Community College.

But it turns out that too often, Compass, a diagnostic exam sold by the folks who make the ACT, indicated that students needed remedial classes when they didn't. A few days in the classroom or a separate diagnostic test would show that the student should have been in a college-credit class.

Beginning with the spring 2017 semester, incoming Columbus State students will take a different test. The college already was looking for an alternative when ACT announced in June that it was dropping Compass, said Allysen Todd, dean of Arts & Sciences. ACT has said inaccurate student placements were part of the reason.

Is the "Career and College Ready" mantra proclaimed by corporate education reformers all based upon bad data coming from a diagnostic test that was unable to diagnose the need for college remediation?

And just how much money have parents and students needlessly spent on unnecessary remediation college classes because of this erroneous test?

Ohio Legislator Threatens Teachers Who Advise Testing Opt-Out

HB420 was supposed to be a simple bill meant to shield schools from having their ratings adversely affected by parents who chose to have their children opt-out of standardized testing. Then the author of the bill ,  Kristina Roegner (R), instead issued a substitute bill that would criminalize teachers for advising parents to opt their children out of testing.  

Here's the offending language

Sec. 3319.152. (A) No employee of a school district or public school shall negligently suggest to any student, or parent, guardian, or custodian of that student, enrolled in the district or school that the student should choose to not take any assessment prescribed by section 3301.0710 or 3301.0712 of the Revised Code. This prohibition does not apply to an employee of the district who is a member of an IEP team when determining individual appropriate accommodations that are necessary to measure the academic achievement and functional performance of a child with a disability on state and district-wide assessments for purposes of the child's IEP.

(B) On a finding by the state board of education, after investigation, that a school employee who holds a license issued by the state board has violated division (A) of this section, the license of that employee shall be suspended for one year. Prior to commencing an investigation, the state board shall give the employee notice of the allegation and an opportunity to respond and present a defense. 

(C)(1) Violation of division (A) of this section is grounds for termination of employment of a nonteaching employee under division (C) of section 3319.081 or section 124.34 of the Revised Code.

(2) Violation of division (A) of this section is grounds for termination of a teacher contract under section 3311.82 or 3319.16 of the Revised Code.

Educators have not responded kindly. The Ohio Education Association issued this statement

Sub. HB 420 creates an extreme and misdirected penalty for school employees based on the wildly vague and subjective standard of “negligently suggesting” a student opt-out of a state assessment. 

OEA will not stand for this hostile “gotcha” legal trap and it must be removed from the bill. The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Kristina Roegner (R- Hudson), has said that the provision will be removed. But we still urge OEA members to contact their representatives and voice our strong opposition.

You can contact Rep Roegner here and tell her to drop this shameful language from HB420.

Ohio Charters Fail in Comparison to Big 8

With the release of school performance data, comparisons between traditional public schools and charter schools can be performed. The Dispatch has been first out the gate comparing charter schools to the Ohio Urban schools (or the big 8 as they are often referred).

Ohio’s charter schools are struggling to make gains in student performance, making the large urban districts they were meant to reform look good by comparison, state report-card information released last month shows.

More than 80 percent of charter high schools got an F on the latest state report cards or their ability to graduate students on time in four years. Those failing schools listed enrollment that totaled more than 42,000 students; more than 30,000 of them attended three Internet-based charter schools, including the state’s largest, ECOT.
[...]
Of the 19 charter and urban high schools rated A in graduating students on time, two were charters. No charters were in the top 10 schools. The Dispatch did not include the state’s “dropout recovery” charters that target high-school dropouts; their numbers are even worse.

Imagine the comparisons if the dropout recovery schools were included! As usual the Charter school boosters have the excuses ready for yet another year of terrible performance

The Ohio Alliance for Public Charter Schools said in a statement two weeks ago that the release of the latest state numbers should be “viewed within the context of the student demographics of public brick-and-mortar charter schools and the grades they serve,” and that Internet charters such as ECOT should be excluded.

Chambers is arguing that if only the ratings were calculated illegally, her charter schools performance would look better! If you recall, excluding e-schools is what got ODE and David Hansen (the husband of Gov. Kasich campaign manager) in hot water and eventually fired.

However, we agree that ECOT and the other eschools are a major problem. But, rather than simply excluding their performance os it can be hidden from public view, the state should simply close them all down. Tolerating this annual failure is past the sell by date.

Charter Eval Panel Issues Recommendations

The panel convened to clean up the charter school data scrubbing mess has issues its recommendations - which include requiring all charter schools including e-schools and drop-out recovery schools to be counted, and for the ratings to be calculated similarly to traditional public schools. the recommendations also dismiss the suggestion by ECOT that the number of students a school has be ignored in the weightings - thereby making ECOT with thousands of students look like a rinky-dink charter with just a handful.

You can view the presentation of the panel below

State Board Dec2015 Community School Sponsor Evaluation

The Myth of Unions’ Overprotection of Bad Teachers

A new study, by Eunice S. Han for the The National Bureau of Economic Research, titled "The Myth of Unions’ Overprotection of Bad Teachers: Evidence from the District-Teacher Matched Panel Data on Teacher Turnover" found teachers unions raise the dismissal of low-quality teachers because higher wages give districts a greater incentive to select high-quality teachers but lower the attrition of high-quality teachers, as they negotiate higher wages for teachers.

From the study's conclusion:

I find that districts with strong unionism dismiss more underperforming teachers and have lower teacher attrition than districts with weak unionism.
[...]
I find that districts with strong unionism dismiss more underperforming teachers and have lower teacher attrition than districts with weak unionism.

Through the dynamics of teacher turnover, unions ultimately raise teacher quality, as unionized districts can better retain good teachers and dismiss more underperforming teachers. Two pieces of empirical evidence support this hypothesis: districts with strong unionism have more teachers with stronger qualifications and lower dropout rates than districts with weak unionism. I also find that the recent legal change weakening unionism in four states affects the teacher turnover pattern and teacher quality negatively, confirming unions’ positive role in the US educational system.

This research, therefore, suggests that restricting the legal boundary for unions’ activities may not be the appropriate approach in improving educational outcomes. Rather, promoting union-friendly environments may create more encouraging economic conditions for teachers and provide districts with incentives to select better teachers, eventually raising teacher quality.

You can read the entire study below

The Myth of Unions’ Overprotection of Bad Teachers