Testing ... one, two, three

This article, the first in a series of three, examines the mechanics of Ohio’s accountability system for public schools and how that system affects our kids’ classroom experience. The second article will explore how administrators, teachers, students and parents who are connected to non-public school settings determine what their kids should know and measure what they’ve learned. How teachers, students and parents feel about, accommodate or even resist Ohio’s steps intended to improve public school education will be the focus of the last article.

by Jill Miller Zimon

If the phrase "Testing, testing, testing" makes you think of proficiency tests rather than sound checks, you’re probably a parent with school-aged children. But how much do you know about our state’s array of assessments and what it’s supposed to accomplish? How does it impact our kids? Are our schools and schoolchildren better off or overburdened because of tinkering with standards, curriculums and accountability? So long as testing is here to stay, you probably should understand how it works.

If food, clothing and shelter comprise our basic needs to live, then reading, writing and arithmetic form the basic needs to learn. The Ohio Department of Education (ODE), through its mandated tests, wants our kids to show mastery in those subjects, plus science and social studies. In addition, as of September 2006, any student who wants a high school diploma from an Ohio public or chartered nonpublic school will have to pass the Ohio Graduation Test.

Ohio implemented these assessments in order to meet state and federal accountability requirements. They’re intended to measure whether students know the material delineated in Ohio’s academic content standards. These standards are sets of subject-specific information that tell teachers what students should learn.

The state uses the test results to hold schools and districts accountable by creating local report cards. These report cards use the percentages of passing test scores as indicators of how well schools and districts perform. Any school or district that fails to meet or exceed enough indicators may need to take corrective actions.  Thus, Ohio promotes what it believes to be the basics by assuming that schools want good report cards and will teach students the knowledge and skills necessary to pass the state’s tests.

When Ohio’s public schools began to administer standardized tests in the 1990s, teachers were guided by the ODE’s learning outcomes. But according to Jan Crandell, outgoing director of assessment at the ODE, "The outcomes were 20 to 25 statements with a paragraph or two or three that talked about what the outcome meant, but they weren’t so helpful to teachers. They were a net, but there were lots of places where teachers could fall through the net. Another criticism was that there wasn’t much information before the grade level to help a teacher the year before a test to help prepare kids for on-grade level tests. The academic content standards that now exist for K-12 have a very fine net with a lot of support for teachers at grade level and before grade level. It’s a very articulated set of indicators, benchmarks and standards that serve as the basis for all new achievement tests."

Dr. Carla Calevich, director of curriculum and instruction for the Brecksville-Broadview Heights City Schools, sees the academic content standards as a "framework for each teacher….This is a very positive aspect of the process. Each teacher in Ohio knows what every student should know and be able to do."

Although curriculum directors view the standards as a minimum, some also feel that the manuals go beyond the basics. Ray Conti, director of curriculum and instruction for the Westlake City School District, thinks that the standards cover many areas in depth and allow students to problem solve and do higher-level thinking. Nancy Wingenbach, the Orange City Schools director of educational programs, agrees that the standards let teachers take kids further. However, she adds, "We build a curriculum that meets the needs of our kids. We sometimes have things in there that may or may not be in the standards. The standards are not the end all, be all of what’s being taught."

Dr. Rosemary Gornick Brickman, executive director of instruction for the South Euclid-Lyndhurst School District, also acknowledges the comprehensive nature of the standards. But she has fears. "The more meaningful experiences that have a longer impact on kids are lost because we’re in a cycle of assessment. We’re worried that it will suppress and inhibit learning over a lifetime." To counteract these concerns, Brickman’s driving philosophy honors the three S’s: self (meaning the student), subject matter and society. "We locate these things in each of the standards in order to sustain the students’ authentic experiences."

Now that you understand learning outcomes and proficiency tests, you can forget about them. They’ll both be history as of September 2005, when academic content standards and achievement, diagnostic and graduation tests fully replace them as statewide guidelines and assessments for third through tenth grade education. (See Sidebar) Although Ohio initiated the shift prior to the adoption of the federal No Child Left Behind law, Jan Crandell of the ODE points to the national standards-based movement embraced by that law as the basis for Ohio’s conversion to what she believes are better aligned, more detailed accountability tools.

Local report cards already reflect some changes. For example, in the 2003-2004 school year, the report cards will display 18 indicators, with 15 linked to proficiency test scores and 1 linked to achievement test scores. The 2004-2005 report card will look dramatically different, with its 21 indicators split almost evenly between proficiency and achievement test results. Finally, in 2005-2006, all indicators, except for graduation rate and attendance, will be based on achievement tests.

The opinion of one mother, who has three children in suburban public schools on the east side of Cleveland, typifies the discontent many parents harbor toward state-wide and high stakes tests:

"My district does a good job preparing the students for the tests... It doesn’t go overboard. They don't make the kids feel anxious and don't put too much pressure on the kids. A neighboring district, however, gears their entire teaching towards these tests. It’s only concern is that it ranks #1 amongst the area schools. I know kids in that district who get tutors over the summer just to better their test scores. I think that is totally ridiculous."

Nancy Kober, a writer and consultant to the Center on Education Policy, believes that people often misunderstand and misuse the phrase "teaching to the test." In the June 2002 edition of the Center’s Testtalk for leaders, Kober asserts that a test prep method earns a place along the spectrum of good and bad practices based on whether it improves the students’ mastery of the broader subject. If the strategy raises test scores without also raising skills, it’s probably not acceptable. However, she writes:

"When standards, tests and accountability systems are well-aligned, high in quality, and compatible with a rich curriculum, teaching to the test can have a positive meaning. It can signify that teachers are teaching students what they need to know, as defined by state standards. This type of teaching to the test is pretty much the same as good teaching."

Against this backdrop, Ohio’s efforts appear to be well designed. Curriculum directors call the standards rich, say that they use them as a starting point, and the ODE supplies multiple alignment tools to assist districts in keeping standards and curriculums relevant to test content.

Jill Miller Zimon is a freelance writer, lawyer and social worker who lives in Pepper Pike. She’s a member of the Orange Parents Education Network board and her synagogue’s education committee. She is a storyteller for the KnowledgeWorks Foundation’s Small Schools Project, which seeks to improve education by converting large urban high schools into smaller, community-connected facilities.