Letter to Governor
George Voinovich
July, 1997
[State Board of Education letterhead]
July 17, 1997
The Honorable George V. Voinovich
Governor of Ohio
77 South High Street, 30th Floor
Columbus, Ohio 43215
Dear Governor Voinovich:
Thank you for sharing the concerns outlined
in your June 30 letter regarding the Standards for Ohio Schools as adopted in
principle by the State Board of Education.
Before addressing the issues raised in that
correspondence, I would like to first communicate the Board's strong belief that these
standards provide both a viable and an effective framework for improving schools
throughout Ohio. Together with the Superintendent and the Department of Education, the
State Board has analyzed, debated, revised, and then further debated the improvement
measures embodied in these standards. Certainly, these issues will continue to be
discussed in the coming months as the General Assembly considers legislation relative to
graduation requirements and accountability measures. The State Board wants to be an active
partner in the dialogue with you and the legislature and believes we have much to offer
those discussions.
The work that already has been accomplished
on the standards is especially crucial given the DeRolph decision by the Ohio
Supreme Court. Your response to that decision clearly communicated that money alone is not
the answer to this issue. As your funding proposal stated so well, we must also
"assure voters that their money will be used as effectively as possible to produce
better results." The improvements outlined in these standards are the keys to
ensuring the academic success of all Ohio children. As such, they must be an integral part
of any meaningful response to the Supreme Court ruling.
Now, I would like to address the specific
concerns in your letter.
- Student Competencies
The student competencies are vague.
(Reference page 1, paragraph 4.) The State Board has not yet defined the competencies
so they cannot be characterized at all at this point. If this reference is to the examples
included in the discussion guide, these are taken from the Board approved model curricula
and, too, are not presented in their complete context.
Much thought and public debate will be needed if
competencies are to be developed to reflect what Ohioans believe their children should
know and be able to do. The Board is committed to establishing such an in-depth public
process that will fully engage parents, educators, students, and business and community
leaders. The legislative concurrence required on these competencies will also ensure
additional input from the public through the work of the General Assembly. Your oft-stated
guidance to those of us in the public sector comes to mind in thinking about this issue:
"If you can't measure it... don't do it!" We can measure performance with a
competency-based system of education.
The student competencies extend too far
beyond the skills generally accepted as necessary for lifelong learning. (Reference page
1, paragraph 4.) Additionally, they de-emphasize the importance of the basics by the
inclusion of subject areas that are not viewed as critical to a sound education (Reference
page 2, paragraph 2.) Let me briefly review the Board's expectations with regard to
the graduation requirements. It is our recommendation in the standards that Ohio students
will have an opportunity to achieve:
- by the end of the eighth grade, a basic
level of academic competency in each of ten subject areas (English, mathematics, science,
social studies, foreign languages, arts, technology, business, family and consumer
science, and health and physical education);
- by the end of high school, an intermediate
level of academic competency in the four core disciplines (English, mathematics,
science and social studies), thus raising the current eighth-grade expectations measured
by Ohio's- Ninth-Grade Proficiency Tests; and
- again, by the end of high school-in
at least two additional subject areas chosen by the student-an advanced level of
academic competency in the four core disciplines and/or an intermediate level of
competency in technology, arts, foreign language, business, or family and consumer
sciences.
The State Board heard much testimony and received
numerous communications regarding these graduation requirements. It is our belief that
well-rounded students will need a basic level of competency in each of these subject areas
to be successful no matter where they reside in Ohio. Here are a few of the specific
reasons why we chose to include each of these disciplines beyond the core areas.
Technology requirement: Our
information-based society demands that every child achieve a basic level of technology
proficiency both to survive and succeed. Additionally, in light of the state's $500
million plus targeted at technology? defining performance expectations for students and
schools will better ensure a return on our investment
Arts requirement: Educational
literature is replete with research findings that suggest the arts have a proven positive
impact on student learning in other disciplines and contribute to better performance on
standardized tests. Twenty-four states now require the study of the arts for high school
graduation, and six additional states are in the process of adding the arts. Our proposal
would require achieving only a basic level of skill for graduation prior to the
ninth grade, better equipping students for further study at the high school level, if they
so choose.
Foreign language requirement: The
Board considered the importance of students having a basic level of proficiency in foreign
language given today's global economy and Ohio's reliance on foreign trade. Second
language competency is expected of students in other countries and; in fact, 21 states in
this country have or are considering foreign language as a graduation requirement. Again,
achieving a basic level of skill for graduation prior to the ninth grade would
better equip students with the ability to choose further study of foreign language at the
high school level.
Business and family and consumer science
requirements: In regard to the two new discrete competency areas of business and
family and consumer science, the board listened to constituencies from each of these
subjects advocate passionately for the breakout of these competencies as part of the
graduation requirement. While we listened to the public promote these competencies, we may
want to weigh what we heard earlier with the input being received by the legislature.
Health and physical education
requirements: A half unit of credit is currently required for both health and physical
education; it is not a new unit requirement. However, in the Board's proposal, the
state would define the competencies, leaving the responsibility for assessment at the
local level. We believe that basic competency expectations are needed to ensure that all
students have the skills they need for lifelong fitness and preventative care. Since there
have been concerns raised about the state's role in defining competencies in this area, it
may be appropriate to also reconsider this requirement. Minimally, we recommend retaining
unit credit in these areas.
Finally, the State Board of Education does
not believe that these additional competencies erode the critical core of
academics-English, mathematics, science, and social studies. Rather, the standards
assure a higher level of competency by requiring all students to achieve at least an
intermediate level of proficiency in these core disciplines. Only an eighth grade
level of competency is required in these subject areas currently. We are "raising the
bar" for all students with these standards by incorporating intermediate and advanced
level competencies.
Students may be forced into a vocational
track. (Reference page 2, paragraph 1.) Ohio students will not be forced into a
vocational track. Period. The achievement of vocational competencies is only for those
students who have chosen to enroll in specific vocational occupational programs, such as
automotive technician or metalworking. Vocational education already uses the Ohio
Competency Analysis Profiles developed by business and industry for students in
occupational programs. These profiles provide a tool for students to demonstrate their
achievement of occupation-specific competencies. Such competencies would not be applied to
all students. Department staff are now reviewing the standards to determine if any changes
are still needed to assure the intent of the Board is clear.
Why can't student competencies be developed
concurrently with the standards? (Reference page 2, paragraph 3). As you know, the
State Board tried this very approach unsuccessfully in 1993 when we began the work of
revising the standards. Based on that experience, the Board decided that it was important
to first get agreement on a framework for a competency-based education system before
identifying specific competencies. Additionally, defining the competencies will be a
somewhat lengthy, and, at points, technical process. We need to have the legislative
framework prior to investing the time and resources in developing the competencies.
However, the State Board is ready to begin that work immediately after the legislature
takes action. Again, we are committed to engaging the public in this process.
- 2. School Performance Standards
(Please Note: This section addresses all of the
issues raised on the accountability section of the standards. some of which were embedded
in various places throughout your letter.)
The school performance standards are
unrealistic. (Reference page 2, paragraph 4.) This is clearly a difficult question:
how hard can we press for improvement while at the same time recognizing the challenges
schools and districts face? The Board struggled with this issue of how high to set the
school performance bar. We believe that the standards should stretch the schools, but also
meet the test of reasonableness especially from the perspective of parents and taxpayers.
Most people would view the recommended 75% passing rate as a solid "C" if the
grading scale is 100. Thus, given our best judgment of what the public threshold is for
acceptable performance, the Board believes what we have set are reasonable standards of
expectations for our schools. In fact, some would argue these are not aggressive enough
and we are selling some children short.
Local control will be eroded and the
state's direct responsibility for educating students will be excessive. (Reference page 2,
paragraph 6.) Are the new standards compatible with SB 140? (Reference page 3, paragraph
1.) Again, the State Board grappled with this issue of local control versus state
involvement and oversight. The standard, established by Senate Bill 140 in the
"excellent and deficient" provisions, calls for a closer relationship between
the state and low-performing schools/districts-requiring state intervention more quickly
than our proposed mechanism. In addition to proposing a continuous improvement framework,
the Board's proposal relies on a broad range of intervention strategies and rewards to
complement the diverse levels of performance that exist. For example, the oversight and
intervention options for low performing schools include developing a locally defined
school improvement plan, state approval of a corrective action plan, and, ultimately, in
the worst cases, state control of a district.
It is my understanding from Superintendent
Goff that both the architect of this provision of the SB 140 legislation, as well as the
Legislative Office of Education Oversight, concurred with the need to reframe the
"excellent and deficient" laws. The standards for school performance are
compatible with the overall framework of SB 140 and introduce a broad range of
consequences to respond to the diverse needs that exist across the state, as mentioned
above.
Again, it is the Board's intent that only
in the very worst situations would the state become intimately involved with a local
school system. The emphasis needs to be on supporting local solution building. However,
there are situations where some degree of state involvement is necessary due to the
absence of local responsibility or competence. The level and nature of that involvement
would be in direct response to the need that exists. This approach to "academic
bankruptcy" is no different than the way we are handling school district financial
bankruptcy now.
Recommendation to notify districts
annually with the first evidence of non-compliance. (Reference page 3, paragraph 2.)
It is the intent of the Board and the Department of Education to share the annual
assessment of performance with schools so that they can begin immediately to take action,
including asking for assistance from us as well as others. As already noted, the state
would only intervene intimately in the worst situations-and then only after schools have
had ample notice and time to turn their performance around. We share your belief that we
should pursue a positive rather than a punitive approach to the degree possible.
Annually report to the public improvements on
the performance indicators in the standards. (Reference page 3, paragraph 3.) The
State Board also agrees with your suggestion that we produce a statewide "report
card" that aggregates the same performance measures to be applied to individual
schools and districts. In fact, Superintendent Goff has already begun by challenging his
staff to develop a prototype for the first such report card by fall 1998. It is my
understanding, Governor, that we already do this in part through your Annual Report on the
National Goals. We may want to consider looking at including this performance data in the
same report card. Staff are also working to develop a report card to be used for local
school buildings and districts that could potentially include "like-school
district" comparisons and could benchmark similar types of schools and districts to
the "best in class" for a given category of school/district (e.g., rural, urban,
etc.). Such a report card would be generated for parents so that they have accurate and
timely information on their child's school.
- 3. Reporting Requirements Overburden Districts
(Reference page 3, paragraph 1)
The standards as adopted by the Board do
not require the reporting of any new data, so there is no additional burden on schools.
The demographic data you reference is already reported by districts. In fact, the
Department of Education has shared statewide aggregations of this information in the
annual goals report released every fall and during the release of proficiency test
results.
What is new, however, is that we would now hold
schools and districts accountable for what the data tell us about the performance of
diverse student populations. This is especially important in such subjects as mathematics
and science where our statewide results clearly show that, while proficiency test scores
are increasing overall, more improvement is needed in ensuring all students are able to
perform at a high level of achievement.
We have a legal-and more importantly a
moral-imperative as we raise standards to assure that all students have the opportunity to
learn. Disaggregating the data as outlined in the standards is one way to ensure that we
can do these verifications. Without it, the aggregate data could mask poor performance in
one building or in a particular sub-population of students even while the district-wide
indicators looked solid. It might interest you to know, however, that the Board has an
Information Services Committee that is currently looking at the issue of data collection.
Our committee will be making recommendations concerning how to streamline and improve the
quality of the data collected from districts as well as internally in the Department.
4. Impact on Carnegie Units (Reference
page 3, paragraph 4)
The Board sincerely appreciates your
support of our focus on student performance. We also understand the concerns that have
been raised with regard to our decision to move away from Carnegie units in the new
standards. However, we saw no value in continuing to regulate the time spent on various
subject areas since these input/process controls only guarantee exposure to and not
achievement of the content. We tested our thinking with many employer groups and higher
education stakeholders and they concurred with this assessment.
Having said that, I also want you to know we
agree that the Carnegie unit can work hand in glove with our recommendation to define
competencies in key subject areas. The Board and the Department have already begun working
with Senator Watts to do just that in the legislation he has proposed to increase
graduation requirements. Furthermore, the value of the Carnegie Unit to various
constituencies is communicated in the Discussion Guide on the standards. School districts
still can effectively use this measure of instructional time in combination with the board
proposed competencies. In fact, an example of how this is already working in six
northeastern school districts is included in the guide. So, the short answer to your
question is yes, Governor, the State Board does believe that districts choosing to retain
the Carnegie units as the structure of their curriculum can do so in tandem with the new
standards.
5. Separate Special Education Standards
(Reference page 3, paragraph 5)
The legislature is stepping up action on
two components of the standards-the graduation requirements and accountability sections.
The remaining areas, such as the special education standards, will now most probably move
forward under a different time table. The Department will use this opportunity to
streamline the special education standards as well as to take into consideration any
changes that have occurred federally with the recent passage of The Individuals with
Disabilities Act Amendments of 1997 by the U.S. Congress in May of this year. As
Superintendent Goff has mentioned to you previously, many of these standards reflect
federal law.
I appreciate the opportunity to respond to
each of these concerns, Governor, and would be happy to meet with you in person to discuss
these issues further. You have led the charge for results here in Ohio, and nationally.
These standards demonstrate that the State Board of Education has heard that message. Your
February 7 correspondence to me clearly supports the overall direction we have taken to
improve education. Bottom line, we are committed to standards that will:
- establish higher expectations,
- support continuous improvement,
- ensure better results, and
- provide increased accountability to the
citizens of Ohio.
The in-depth work the Board has done on the Standards
for Ohio Schools is on record. We believe it can play a pivotal role in securing
public support for school funding reforms. Be assured that we are also committed to
working together with you and the legislature to provide the children of this state with a
world class education system.
Sincerely,
(signed)
Jennifer L. Sheets President
C: John M. Goff, Superintendent of Public Instruction
Members of the State Board of Education
Go Home