Date: June 18, 1997

To: My constituents and other interested parties

From: Diana M. Fessler, Third District, Ohio State Board of Education

RE: Why I voted "no" on the "Standards for Ohio Schools" document

These comments, now slightly expanded, were presented to the full board prior to our vote to adopt the proposed Standards for Ohio Schools "in principle" The page numbers listed below correspond to the May 12 Standards for Ohio Schools document, but on the whole, the page numbers also correspond with earlier editions of the proposed standards. This is not an exhaustive list of what I perceive to be major flaws in the proposed standards. The State Board of Education can take no further action on the standards until lawmakers pass corresponding legislation. Accordingly, action now shifts to the House and Senate as the Ohio Department of Education seeks a sponsor for needed legislation.

  • Pages 1-3 Definitions. When the definitions are viewed as a whole, it is easy to see the shift toward job-training as opposed to academic instruction:
  • B - Career Clusters
  • C -- Career Pathways
  • D -- Career Readiness
  • E -- includes vocational performance expectations
  • I -- Employability
  • K -- Individual Career Plan, and
  • W -- Vocational Education

Is it the function of our school systems to educate youth to enable them to become productive, intelligent citizens in a free society prepared to independently chart their own course (which is part and parcel of what made our national great); or is it the function of schools to join others in workforce development to produce workers for the perceived good of the economy?

  • Page 1 (A) - the definition of "assessment system" means the entire collection of strategies and instruments used by a school or district to verify each learner's achievement of academic and/or vocational competencies The system will consist of multiple approaches, including state-mandated proficiency tests; standardized [defined on page 3 (U)] measures of achievement developed or selected by the district, and strategies or instruments developed or selected by individual teachers." A collection of strategies consisting of approaches? What hooey!
  • (M) - The definition of a "learner" means a student in a chartered school or program. Is the program a part of the chartered school? Or is it a stand-alone program? The department says that it refers to pre-school programs so I moved to insert pre-school. The department then objected saying that it is the intention that the term be used when referring to all who come under the rules and regulations of the State Board of Education. On page two, a learner is a person who is learning, yet on page 21 (a) (i) we have learners with an inability to learn. Which is it? In addition, it is noteworthy that this 103-page document makes no reference to children, no reference to pupils, and inadvertently uses student only three times. This document, which will impact 1.8 million children each year, fails to acknowledge the humanity of our children and grandchildren and reduces them to mere learners. Dogs and monkeys can learn. Learners should be deleted and replaced with student.
  • Page 2 (R) Pupil Services includes intervention, assessment, diagnosis, counseling, guidance, therapy, and health services. In order to appropriately determine if services are needed in each of these areas, pre-testing will be necessary. See again the definition of assessment. Many parents will object to being forced to pay, through taxation, for services that are not within the scope of schooling, even if the majority of SBE thinks they are.
  • Page 2 (S) School is defined as a unit of operation that may have unique management. I trust that we could ask fifty people on any given corner of High Street to define a school and not one of them would define a school in such a bizarre way. In addition, our proposed Chapter 3302 defines a school building as anyplace where instruction and assessment take place. Such language opens the door for any business to become a "school" and potentially become eligible for local, state, and federal tax dollars.
  • Page 3 (U) Under the definition of "standardized" learners are being assessed. To assess something is to place a value or worth on it. Land is assessed. We ought to be assessing a student's work; not the student. Testing and assessing are two different actions.
  • Page 3 I have repeatedly made the point that all students will be vocational students. I will do so again today by drawing your attention to (W) Vocational education. It includes career readiness and family and consumer science. Career readiness, according to our STW grant, begins in kindergarten. Family and consumer science shows up as a diploma requirement on page 10. If a student cannot get a diploma without being competent in family and consumer science, and since family and consumer science is, by definition, vocational education, then it follows that all students will be vocational education students.
  • We have often been told that Individual Career Plans and Passports are not mandatory. However, existing law states that if a district receives money for Plans or Passports then all students SHALL receive them. Now, since all students must be involved in career readiness, and family and consumer science, the districts will, of course, receive money for such programs. The result is that all students will participate in vocational education and all will have career plans and passports.
  • On pages 5, 10, 26, 29, 49, 63, 65, and 67 we actually mentioned school boards. When these few paragraphs are put together they take up about two pages. The remaining directives in this 103- page document bypass locally elected schools boards. A nameless entity called "the district" which is not directly accountable to the voters is responsible for carrying out the bulk of state directives. This could be easily rectified by eliminating all the headers marked "The School District Shall" so that all text flows directly under "The District School Board Shall." Better yet, eliminate all references to the "District Shall" and let local boards run their own districts.
  • Page 5: (B) (1) (A) This section may give the impression that local boards have some authority as it relates to establishing local standards. However, the April 16th memo put out by Frances Rogers makes it clear that the state has already set 18 performance indicators that few (perhaps only seven) districts can meet. Therefore, it is not likely that districts will feel compelled to add to their burden. In addition, page three of the proposed ORC Chapter 3302.01 (B) says that the performance indicators apply to the general student population and to subgroups of race and gender. I presume that this means that 75% of all the girls must pass the tests, and 75% of all the boys must pass the test, etc. This is a wholly unrealistic expectation predicated on the notion of equality of results rather than equality of opportunity.
  • Page 10: Measurement, Assessment, and Validation of Learner Performance. In these life-long learning ($$) standards, page 3 (W) (4), nobody ever graduates, they just get a diploma, page 10 (A) (3), and a credential, page 12 (4), that says that they are ready for further education or employment. This of course raises the question of what happens to those students who do not receive said credential since they are not certified ready for the workforce or for further education. Provision has been made for Special Purpose schools - see page 99 (B)(6). Going back to page 3 (W), we see that this credential is universally recognized, which, of course, discloses that this is indeed a national certificate. [See "A Report on the Work Toward National Standards, Assessments, and Certificates."]
  • Page 10 (3) (a) requires that students pass, not merely take the 4th and 6th grade proficiency tests. Currently, if a student does not pass the 4th or 6th grades test he or she moves on to the next grade and the school provides intervention, as needed.
  • Page 10 (3) (b) makes reference to state-approved vocational education programs. Which vocational programs are not approved?
  • Page 10 (3) (c) requires learners to demonstrate competency in art, business, family and consumer science, foreign language, health and physical education, and technology. I am fully persuaded that a person can have a happy and full life without being competent in any of these areas. If these competencies in these areas are required in order for a student to graduate, then the state will need to provide intervention specialist to help those students who are not meeting the standards. ($$$). This section has great civil rights litigation potential, i.e., if a student can't get a diploma employment opportunities are restricted. In addition, health as well as family and consumer science, the replacement for home economics, are both heavily laden with human reproduction outcomes that will lead to much controversy. How does one opt-out of sex education when it has become, on two fronts, a requirement for getting the diploma and the work-permit credential, especially when we are encouraging integration of subject matter across disciplines?
  • Page 10: (B) (1) says that the school district shall implement an ongoing assessment system for all learners. Paragraph (d) says that the system includes professional development of the district school board. I can understand why the board might make provision for the professional development of district staff, but the notion of the staff making provision for professional development of the board makes me wonder: Who are the Indians and who are the Chiefs?
  • Page 11: Small (i) speaks of intervention-based assessment without making provision for parental notification and permission before such assessments takes place.
  • Page 12 (3) (f) sounds like a paperwork nightmare. The notion of documenting each child's progress toward accomplishing state and local competencies far exceeds past practice of issuing letter grades, which was in itself a monumental task.
  • Page 12 (4) refers to an exit credential, "such as" a career passport. Do we mean that the exit credential is not a career passport? It is, or is it not? Is this a veiled reference to the Certificate of Initial Mastery?
  • Page 17 (D) (4) uses the term educator and teacher in the same phrase thereby implying that there is a difference. What is the difference?
  • Page 26: (B) (2) (h) says that the district SHALL ENSURE that the curriculum IS GUIDED by the state model or some other COMPARABLE models. This of course is not in keeping with the ORC; currently schools are not required to ENSURE THAT THEIR PROGRAMS ARE GUIDED BY THE STATE MODEL OR ANY OTHER COMPARABLE MODELS, i.e., they have local control.
  • Page 28: Curriculum for Vocation Education (B) says that curricula and programs are to be based on OCCUPATIONAL, EMPLOYABILITY, and technological competencies using the OCAPS, Tech-Prep Competency Profiles, Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS) competencies, and where applicable, national skill standards {see Goals 2000 legislation), and industry certification. The U. S. Department of Labor's SCANS report has never been reviewed by this body and we certainly haven't reviewed the SCANS competencies. In addition, the SCANS report, was just that, a report; it did not receive Congressional review or acceptance, nor has it been accepted by the General Assembly. This report should not be codified by being included in these standards.
  • Page 28 (F) We are forcing districts to provide student organizations. Certainly, districts can make such decisions without force of law.
  • Page 30 (iii) top of the page and (10) (B)(1). Instruction. By what process will parents be notified that their children will be assessed in an on-going fashion? At what point does informed, parental consent come into play?
  • Page 49: Instruction for Vocational Education Students will be provided work-based learning opportunities, yet we are silent regarding how they will be paid and where these jobs will come from. We are also silent as to how we will arrange and pay for student transportation to and from these work-sites.
  • Page 50 Personnel and Education Services has a new twist at (B) (2) (b) wherein a "team" can hold the required licenses "collectively." This suggests that a person certified to teach history, another person certified to teach art, and someone else certified in the field of psychology can all take turns, as "team" members, practicing each other's specialty. Do you think parents will consider this a good idea? I certainly don't.
  • One page 50 (c) (iii) we have this same team approach for delivery of pupil services, i.e., intervention, assessment, diagnosis, counseling, guidance, therapy, and health services (See page 2).
  • Page 68 Learners and Parents - In this section, when given opportunity, we have failed to inform parents concerning their rights relative to their children's records, i.e., access, confidentiality, consent, etc.
  • The resolution to adopt the standards "in principle" provided the mechanism to bypass the normal Chapter 119 rule making process and authorized the State Board to hold a public hearing [not be confused with other "hearings" - See Chapter 119 of the Ohio Revised Code] on these standards prior to the effective date of the legislative changes and upon approval by the General Assembly through the adoption of a concurrent resolution rather than the normal rule filing and review process which usually takes at least 90 days.
  • For the sake of discussion we will presume that the state has a vested interest in the education of youth. The question then becomes: In the process of achieving the state's presumed vested interest, are these standards least restrictive? Do they infringe of the lives of citizens to the least degree possible while still achieving the states interest? Clearly they are not least restrictive standards.
  • All things considered, on principle, I voted against the adoption of the proposed standards and I encouraged my fellow board members to do likewise. Those voting in FAVOR of the standards were: Baker, Bates, DeGross, Hibbard, Jacobs, Nolte, Pfeiffer, Richardson, Roman, Ross, Thatcher, Wise, and Sheets. Those who voted AGAINST the standards were: Byrne, Fessler, Moore, and Ocasek. ABSENT: Smith.
  • Many of the items listed above could have been rectified, by amendment, had it been the will of the majority. However, certain components of the standards, the heart of the standards, are integral to the document and there was no way to spruce them up; they, in my opinion, needed to be totally dismantled, i.e.,
  • The assessment system (p.1) and (28)(B) including Work Keys (Ohio's Certificate of Initial Mastery Pilot)

The following editorial regarding WorkKeys was faxed to the Wichita Eagle on March 26, 1997 by 16-year-old Jenny Potochnik about the WorkKeys assessment. Ohio uses Work Keys.

. . . As a junior at Heights High School, I took the Work Keys last week. It costs the school district $39 per student for this test and takes 10 hours out of valuable classroom time. Here are some examples of test questions, as well as my editorial comment.

A audio tape of a phone conversation was played for us and we were to take down the message in detail. Taking phone messages. Now that's a good thing to test high school students on! Everyone I talked to thought it was stupid.

A video tape was played showing us how to transfer a phone call. We were instructed to press flash, the extension number, then flash again. Our multiple choice question was: After pressing flash and the extension number, what button do you press? At that point, I was beginning to wonder exactly why I had gotten out of bed. I could have taken this assessment in my sleep!

Then came the floor mopping question. We were instructed by video on how to mop a floor. Then we were given a scenario in which the person mopping did something wrong. We were supposed to say what went wrong. No, I'm NOT kidding!

The math portion of the test was 32 questions of simple arithmetic with a few questions about area and volume. No algebra required. The reading assessment was also very simple. It consisted mainly of short memos that we were given to read with very short, basic questions to answer.

The only part of the Work Keys that I was uncertain of was the technology assessment. We were given diagrams of the inside of a computer and asked questions such as: If floppy disk drive A doesn't work, where should you check first? In another question we were given a diagram of a golf course and its sprinkler system. We were asked about what valves to shut off on what greens to maximize water pressure and so on. There were also questions about refrigerator repair, the installation of electrical outlets, and the interworkings of a vacuum cleaner. I am a high school student, not an appliance repairman or electrician.. .

  • Continuous improvement [(See p. (3)(F) & (5) (B) (1-2)]. Total Quality is a philosophy, and its practice is called Total Quality Management (TQM). One of the tenets of quality is a continuous improvement cycle. In the field of education the continuous improvement cycle is a data-driven process that links student outcomes, curriculum, instruction, assessment and rewards or consequences. This cycle is the heart of Outcome-Based Education. OBE is alive and well in Ohio.
  • In his book, Schools of Quality: An Introduction to Total Quality Management in Education, John Bonstingl says, "TQM is . . . a new way of thinking and living that pervades all aspects of life. When the TQM philosophy is fully implemented in an organization, it becomes the heart and soul of the organization's way of operating." [Note: Bonstingl's book is essential reading for anyone wishing to learn more about TQ as it relates to education reform, i.e.,

Parents are suppliers of the raw material (the child). The school in turn shapes the child (the product) to the specifications required by the customer: business and industry. The result is that the parent is no longer the primary customer of the school; parents are merely suppliers of the material for production, the child, i.e., the human resource.]

  • Professional Development - Historically, taxpayers have knowingly, and willingly, agreed to pay for the education of children by paying taxes to support public schools. The shift that is taking place, unrecognized by most people, is toward the use of tax dollars to pay for the re-education of adults who happen to work in the field of education. We are not talking about occasional in-service days for faculty. Professional development is a major focus of the standards and education "reform" in general.
  • I continue to receive phone calls asking me if there is a connection between the standards, School-to-Work, or the five recommendations laid out in America' Choice: High Skills or Low Wages. The answer is yes there are many connections. Here are just a few:
  • School-to-Work
    • See the first two paragraphs of this paper
    • Work-based learning [see page 28 (C)(2)]
  • Certificates of Initial Mastery
    • Exit credential [p. 12 (4)]
  • Youth Centers
    • Special Purpose Schools [p. 99 (B)(6)]
  • Occupational Certificates
    • Curriculum for Vocation Education [see p. 28 (B)]
    • Instruction [page 29 (B)(1)] all students will have the opportunity to achieve vocational competencies that are listed under the section titled Vocational.
    • Validation [page 28)(E)]
  • Labor Market Needs
    • [See page 28 (A)]
  • A New System of Finance
    • (DeRolph)

To receive a copy of the Standards for Ohio Schools document, call: 1-888-222-4173.

______________

Diana M. Fessler, 7530 Ross Road, New Carlisle, OH 45344 (937) 845-8428 or FAX (937) 845-3550June 16, 1997. Web: http://www.fessler.com or e-mail: [email protected]

Go Home