Who Really Deserves the F?

By Julie Rine, Minerva Local Education Association

The F was not unexpected. My principal had prepared us, telling us that the district report cards were coming out, and that the grades were not good. He went on to say that he and our superintendent were not worried about those failing grades, that they knew we were working hard every day, adjusting our lesson plans to reflect the new tests and more rigorous standards, and doing so much more for our kids than just preparing them for a test. He warned us that when we look at the data, we should take it for what it is, a “snapshot of a flawed testing system.”

So I knew it was coming. I had braced myself for it.

But it still felt like a punch in the gut when I saw the F. How could I (and my colleagues) be working so hard and yet fail so miserably, in every single category?

The value added formula, which generates the district’s grades, is complex. Allegedly it takes a student’s scores on a test, and projects what his score should be on a test the next year. If he doesn’t hit that projected mark, I have failed as a teacher.

I may not understand the intricacies of the formula, but I do know what is not factored in to the formula. Some of my kids can’t wait to come to school on Monday because they haven’t had enough food to eat over the weekend. Some kids bounce from one relative’s house to the next, with no true permanent “home.” Some are struggling to deal with their parents’ divorce, and some are experiencing their first broken heart. Some feel unsafe and unaccepted, even at school, and some have to walk on eggshells at home when family situations are volatile. Some feel that they have no chance at success, since standardized tests have never been kind to them. Some have to work every night after school to help provide income for their families, and some watch younger siblings while their parents work a second job. None of this is factored into what scores kids should earn, even though these and many other factors have a major impact on how kids learn.

Ohio’s teachers do not simply prepare kids for tests, but we act as mentors, counselors, and cheerleaders for our students who are dealing with less than ideal circumstances in their lives; none of that can be measured by a test.

We are doing everything we are asked to do and more, all while trying to prepare kids for an ever-changing assessment.

The State replaced the Ohio Achievement tests with a much harder test that was formatted differently. The new test was designed to be taken electronically, so kids not only had to demonstrate content knowledge, but computer navigation savvy. Reading from a computer screen rather than a piece of paper is a quite different task, and many teachers don’t have access to a computer for every student to practice this skill on a regular basis. In a recent Canton Repository article, Stark County Superintendent Joe Chaddock noted that the overall progress score this year shows drastically lower scores than in previous years because the test changed. He commented, “It’s like if you’re going through driver’s training and you practice in a car, and then you show up and you have to take (the test) on a tractor.”^[1]

Not only that, but countless hours of learning were lost due to teachers training for the new tests, and when we were in the classroom, an inordinate amount of time was lost practicing for and taking the test.

Next year, again, the value added scores will be based on two different tests. Due to the public outcry over the many issues with the PARCC test, the state decided to switch to yet another test for English and math.

It was also decided that there would not be any negative consequences for schools based on those PARCC test scores, yet the report cards were still released. Why? What is the point of giving the public the idea that schools are failing when in reality they are not?

What impact will releasing the report cards have on the passage of levies? I would imagine that if a community has the impression that the school system is failing, many people would be less likely to vote yes for a levy, and since many districts depend on levies, this only hurts the district and makes it harder to maintain its ability to provide a quality education. This is due to a failure on the State’s part; the State has not yet fixed the school funding system, even though it was ruled unconstitutional nearly 20 years ago.

There are more recent failures, too. The State has not only continued to support ineffective charter schools which pull money from public schools, but it has engaged in a cover-up to make the failing charter schools look better, and in spectacular fashion; the recently revised report submitted to the federal government to try to release a $71 million grant reveals that Ohio actually has “nearly 10 times as many failing charter schools as previously claimed”^[2]. Ohio’s school choice director David Hansen resigned because of his part in the cover-up.

Former state school superintendent Richard Ross engaged in a secret plan to take over the Youngstown schools and put in charge a CEO (no education experience necessary) appointed by the Ohio Department of Education, the same people who brought to you the charter school scandal. Mr. Ross initially denied his involvement, but resigned after emails indicated that he was very much a part of crafting the Youngstown Plan.^[3]

It’s hard for me not to feel the sting of the F, but I know my colleagues and I are not deserving of that grade. Someone certainly deserves an F for the state of affairs in education in Ohio, but it’s not the teachers or the school systems. It’s Ohio’s policymakers and state education leaders, and it’s time they took some responsibility their actions.

^[1] “Stark school officials: State report cards are too flawed – The …” 2016. 25 Feb. 2016 <http://www.cantonrep.com/article/20160223/NEWS/160229759>

^[2] “State revises number of failing charter schools to get federal …” 2016. 26 Feb. 2016 <http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2016/02/04/charter-school-federal-grant.html>

^[3] “EXCLUSIVE: Emails & Documents Show Kasich, Ross Led …” 2016. 26 Feb. 2016 <http://plunderbund.com/2015/12/20/exclusive-emails-documents-show-kasich-ross-led-plan-to-takeover-youngstown/>

By Scott DiMauro, OEA Vice President

 As educators, we are deeply committed to the success of every student, including those who struggle to make it to school every day. That is why OEA welcomes the introduction of House Bill 410 (HB 410) and its focus on student truancy in Ohio’s schools. It offers positive alternatives to the legal system in the effort to reduce truancy.

Discipline polices that provide fairness and appropriateness are crucial. The 2008 report, Are Zero Tolerance Policies Effective in the School?, commissioned by the American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force, states that pre-determined consequences do not deter student misbehavior or promote learning. The report concluded that zero tolerance policies often lead to higher dropout rates and an increase in poor behavior.

At our Representative Assembly in December 2013, OEA members overwhelmingly adopted a legislative policy on school discipline that opposes policies that apply pre-determined consequences without consideration of the associated circumstances for issues that do not involve the safety of others. The policy outlines our opposition to discriminatory enforcement of such policies and we are pleased to see that HB 410 prohibits suspensions and expulsions as penalties solely because of unexcused absences under a school district’s zero tolerance policy.

These punishments are counter-productive and do not provide the interventions necessary to address why a student is absent from school, which this bill does address. HB 410 includes a requirement for the State Board of Education to develop a model policy regarding preventative strategies and alternatives for students who are excessively absent, while still keeping legal intervention the last step in attempting to curb student absences.

HB 410 requires public schools to establish an absence intervention team for every habitually truant student. Within 30 days, the team must create an intervention plan to reduce further absences. We know that students are absent for a wide variety of reasons and we agree that there is no one-size-fits-all solution to the problem of student absences. Many school districts across the state have implemented early intervention programs to identify the barriers to student attendance. These efforts are making a difference.

HB 410 also requires schools to submit information to the Ohio Department of Education about students who are absent for 38 or more hours in one month, 65 or more hours in a school year or who are classified as habitual truants when absence intervention plans have been implemented. OEA believes such data is vitally important to the discussion of ways to combat truancy.

However, OEA is concerned about the capacity of a school district to carry out the bill’s requirements. In urban and larger school districts, where truancy rates are higher, there will most likely be a resource crunch to meet the provisions outlined in the bill. According to the Ohio Legislative Services Commissions Fiscal Note, in the 2013-2014 school year, there were approximately 21,900 incidents of student truancy that resulted in some form of discipline. Teacher input on the intervention team is essential, so providing adequate staffing and the needed time and financial resources to ensure successful implementation must be addressed.

OEA also believes that efforts must be made by school districts and student intervention teams to encourage parents to be part of the effort to boost attendance in school. Parents and guardians play an important role in a child’s education. Researchers cite family involvement as a key component in addressing school truancy as well as fostering higher educational aspirations for students. So there is no delay in carrying out these important interventions, OEA recommends that the legislation provide options when parents are not available or responsive.

It is clear that habitual truancy is a significant barrier to academic achievement. Combating this problem requires early intervention. Research published by the National Center for Children in Poverty in 2008 showed that chronic absence in the lower grade levels led to lower academic performance for students regardless of gender, ethnicity or socioeconomic status. Other studies have found that students who are habitually absent in the lower grades have a difficult time attaining reading proficiency and are more likely to be absent in future years. OEA looks forward to working with stakeholders to develop effective solutions to the truancy problem so that students are in school and learning every day.

By Pamela Antos, Hilliard Education Association

Thanks to the passage of College Credit Plus legislation, more Ohio high school students are taking college courses for dual credit. I am a Hilliard City Schools teacher who has been teaching dual credit courses for the past three years, and I have noticed several benefits for students.

In Hilliard, students from all three of our high schools attend our Innovative Learning Center for two periods per day, where they take several Columbus State Community College general education courses. In the past three years, approximately 250 students have completed at least one year of dual credit CSCC courses in Hilliard.

It is absolutely true that these courses are not ideal for every high school student, so good advice from guidance counselors is essential. Our goal in Hilliard is for every student to find the right fit for their personalized goals. For some students, that may be AP coursework. For some, it may be regular high school coursework. But for some, it is undoubtedly our dual credit program.

Some people wonder whether high school students are ready for the mature content in college courses, but anyone who has truly talked with teens knows that they are already thinking about mature, controversial topics. What better place to have those conversations than in a classroom, where they can be guided by a skilled instructor to have such conversations appropriately, respectfully, and intellectually? We have noticed that when we create the right classroom culture, our students rise to the challenge.

Others have wondered whether collegiate general education courses lose their significance when offered in the high school setting. The answer is no. Just last week, I noticed that one of the philosophy instructors stayed after class for 30 minutes to continue a conversation with two students who were so intrigued by the class discussion that they simply felt compelled to continue it. The professor gently questioned students’ views, guiding them to think critically and consider other approaches while also acknowledging her understanding of their perspectives. This is surely the most pure, ideal goal of a college-level general education course, and these students are indeed gaining a “true” college experience, albeit while in high school.

Taking dual credit courses during high school helps even those students who still attend four full years of college. Just a few weeks ago, I ran into the mother of one of our former students, who excitedly told me that because her son completed a year in our program, he now has time to spend a semester studying abroad and will still graduate in four years, something that’s typically tough to do as a special education major.

I could add many more positive stories, not to mention the deep conversations we’ve had with college faculty that have led to greater communication between both worlds. Clearly, College Credit Plus is about much more than just saving families money on college tuition — which is certainly a significant benefit as well — and while there may be challenges yet to solve, it’s an education innovation worth the work.

This is the second of a two-part series examining the College Credit Plus program.

By Julie Rine, Minerva Local Education Association

When I left school for summer break last June, I had 20 kids enrolled in my Honors English III class. When I came back in the fall, that class was down to seven students. SEVEN. What happened to demolish my class? College Credit Plus (CCP). Thirteen of those students who had applied for and been accepted to a college were taking a college composition course instead of my class. The AP Literature teacher in my school has a class of FOUR students this year. She also has only one section of College Prep senior English, when in the past we have had up to three full sections of that class.

The allure of free college is hard to compete with, especially for school districts that have a large number of students living in poverty. Remember that families do not pay for the CCP classes, the school district does. In fact, my small local district paid over $30,000 this year to colleges— with no additional funding from the state — and we anticipate paying more next year as the program gains popularity.

Free college credits are not the only attraction of CCP. If a student’s high school class has a required AIR test, and that student chooses to forego that class to take a CCP course in that subject area instead, he does not have to take the AIR test. The college grade equates to an AIR score. This is another factor that will pull kids away from our public schools to CCP.

It may sound fantastic to have a class of only seven students. I will admit it makes grading papers a lot faster. But it is much harder to get a good discussion going with only seven students and cooperative learning is challenging with that small number as well, and that undermines the education of students who cannot or choose not to participate in CCP.

To keep kids in our high schools and to have some sort of control over CCP, the solution seems to be for high school teachers to get certified to teach a CCP class. Currently, this means getting a master’s degree or 18 credits in the content area. I have taught high school English for twenty years, I have a Bachelor’s degree in English Education (which included 51 credits in English), a Master’s degree in Teaching, and I write professionally, yet according to CCP guidelines, I am not qualified to teach a basic college composition or Intro to Fiction class. I chose to get my master’s degree in teaching because I knew I wanted to continue my career in the classroom. I was not convinced then, nor am I now, that a few more classes in Shakespeare or Poetry will make me a better English teacher.

In any case, taking more classes to get CCP certified requires time and money, something that is just not an option for many teachers. One suggestion has been for school districts to pay more money to a middle or high school teacher who gets certified to teach CCP classes. How well do you think that would go over with elementary teachers, who would not have the same opportunity?

I might teach English, but even I can do this math; when kids leave our campus to take CCP classes, we don’t need as many teachers. What this means is that our schools are essentially being forced to pay for a program that endangers teachers’ jobs. And teachers aren’t the only staff members negatively affected by CCP. The program creates an insane amount of work for school district treasurers, who must deal with tuition and book charges, and guidance counselors.

In my school, we have one guidance counselor, and she estimates that CCP has added hundreds of hours to her workload. In addition to scheduling high school classes and helping students with emotional problems, she must now enroll CCP students in classes, monitor their grades, and track their hours/credits. Each college has a different contact person, and in our area, there are several colleges our students attend as part of the CCP program. In fact, at one college alone, she has four contacts depending on her question or concern. She sums it up by saying, “CCP has been the biggest burden of my job as a counselor thus far.”

Just as the state doesn’t provide funding to the schools to help pay for the program, it provides no funding to hire extra staff to oversee the many intricate parts of the program. It is true that if a student fails a CCP course or withdraws after a certain deadline, the school can require reimbursement from the family, but this is a tricky process and one not likely to be pleasant. Furthermore, the school district cannot require reimbursement from a student who is identified as being “economically disadvantaged”. Of course, those are the kids and families who are most drawn to the free college credits.

Fifteen percent of my high school’s population is taking at least one CCP class, and next year that percentage will be even higher. CCP is gaining in popularity despite the many problems it presents for both students and schools. Some changes should be made to improve the program, such as requiring consistent entry requirements among colleges (including teacher recommendations) and making it easier for an experienced teacher to be certified to teach CCP, but in the meantime, I will advocate for my colleagues and my students by voicing my concerns. Until improvements to the program are made, the problems of College Credit Plus clearly outweigh the perks, for both Ohio’s students and teachers.

This is the first of a two-part series examining the College Credit Plus program.

By Julie Rine, Minerva Local Education Association

Ohio’s College Credit Plus program (CCP) is most likely well intended. CCP allows kids in grades 7-12 access to free dual-credit courses (college classes for which they earn high school and college credits). I’m a single mom, so I can certainly understand the fear that strikes a parent’s heart at the thought of paying for college tuition. However, I’m also a teacher, and from what I’ve seen, I’m just not sure the perks of College Credit Plus outweigh the myriad of potential problems.

First of all, not many students are academically able to skip two or more years of instruction. That is essentially what a junior in high school is doing by taking college classes his junior and senior year instead of high school classes. He skips over two years of content, instruction, guidance, and practice of skills. One of my honors sophomores from last year is now taking English at a local college. After a few weeks of class, he told me with a shade of panic and surprise in his voice, that college classes are “really, really hard”. This does not surprise me; he was an excellent student, but I spent last year preparing his class to be high school juniors, not college freshmen. It should be noted that even though high school teachers have a very good idea of which students could be successful doing college level work, by law we cannot tell a student he can’t participate in CCP.

Keep in mind that if a student does not do well in a CCP course, that low grade begins his college GPA. A ‘C’ earned by a high school student taking a college class will be a 2.0 GPA waiting for him when begins college full-time. Of course, the grade could be much worse, and the student might realize CCP is not his best option after the first semester. But it’s not easy to return to high school mid-year. A high school is not allowed to tell a student he can’t come back, but what do we do with a junior who has missed half a year of American Lit, chemistry, or pre-calc? These are not easy classes to “catch up” in. However, a small school like mine simply doesn’t have many other options for placing a returning CCP student.

Another student I know of aced her CCP French I and II classes at a local branch of a college, but could not handle French III or French II at the college she later transferred to. She ended up retaking French I at that school and earned a C. One of the concerns with College Credit Plus is the lack of consistency among schools. Scott DiMauro, OEA’s Vice President noted that,

“There are lots of questions about whether this program is really serving the needs of the students it purports to help, and one of the questions we raise in particular is whether we are setting students up for failure in the long run if we lower the bar on what actually constitutes college-level work.”

Furthermore, a student may not be ready emotionally or socially for college. A teenager who has to be reminded to do his homework, meet deadlines, study for tests, and pay attention in class may not be the best candidate for CCP. And I am horrified to think about a young, impressionable high school student hearing the conversations that happen in college classrooms before class starts. Not only that, but once class starts, the course material might be too mature for some teenagers. However, college professors are not going to alter their curriculum, which was created with students 18 and older in mind, simply because a high school student is taking the class.

Having the opportunity to take college courses while still in high school is stressful even for the best students. My honors sophomores feel as if they have to decide what they want to do with the rest of their lives right now so they take the “right” classes next year. Why can’t we just let them be kids? Perhaps the great musician/philosopher John Mellencamp said it best: “Hold on to 16 as long as you can/ Changes come around real soon/ Make us women and men”.

Let’s say that a student is academically, socially, and emotionally ready for college, can handle the material, stays on track, and finishes college with a degree earlier than usual, thanks to CCP. We now have a 20 or 21 year old (or younger!) with no job experience competing for jobs with 24 or 25 year olds with no job experience. Who would you hire? By pushing our kids to earn college credits while in high school, we may be setting them up for a challenging job hunt in an already tight job market. Of course the retirement age isn’t lowered for people who finish college early; we are also setting our kids up to have to work for more years than ever before.

My retired teacher friend Dianne said, “High school is where you learn to think and where your teachers prepare you to succeed in college. Short cutting that, it would seem to me, is not in the best interest of the kid.” That says it all. As an advocate for my students, I simply cannot support College Credit Plus in its current form.