The education components of Governor Kasich’s proposed budget—and the House's subsequent revisions—made a big splash in Ohio's news outlets. Much of the attention has been devoted to the House’s (unwise) moves to eliminate PARCC funding and their rewrite of Kasich’s funding formula changes. Amidst all this noise, however, are a few other education issues in the House’s revisions that have slipped by largely unnoticed. Let’s examine a few.
Nationally normed vs. criterion-referenced tests
As part of its attempt to get rid of PARCC, the House added text dictating that state assessments “shall be nationally normed, standardized assessments.” This is worrisome, as there is a big difference between norm-referenced and criterion-referenced tests.
A norm-referenced test determines scores by comparing a student’s performance to the entire pool of test takers. Each student’s test score is compared to other students in order to determine their percentile ranking in the distribution of test takers. Examples of norm-referenced tests are the Iowa Test of Basic Skills or the Stanford 10 exams. A criterion-referenced test, on the other hand, is scored on an absolute scale. Instead of being compared to other students, students are compared against a standard of achievement (i.e., a “proficiency cut score”). Ohio’s former standardized exams—the Ohio Achievement Assessments and Ohio Graduation Tests—were criterion-referenced. The PARCC and SBAC assessments are criterion-referenced exams, as are the nationally administered NAEP exams. (The latter three, importantly, produce scores that can be pegged to college readiness. They can answer the question, “Is this child on track to succeed in college without remediation?”)
In education, there’s room (and a need) for both of these types of tests. In fact, an argument could even be made for the inclusion of student comparisons on score reports (think of percentile rankings that indicate how a student is performing compared to other students across the state or nation). But we’re talking about state tests here--tests that determine report card grades and signal whether students are where they need to be academically. Do we really want the scores of these tests to be based on what other students know, instead what our students should know? Comparing students is useful, but it doesn’t offer a complete picture. Think of it this way: you could be the richest person in your city, but that doesn’t mean you have enough money to pay your bills. It’s a cold comfort to know that you’re better off than your neighbors if you still can’t buy groceries and pay your electric bill. Students and families deserve the absolute truth about academic achievement. That makes the issue here one of courage: Are Ohio policymakers courageous enough to evaluate student achievement against academic standards and a cut score? Or do they prefer the half-truth of student comparisons and the comforting illusions they offer?
EdChoice funding and eligibility
Kasich’s budget made a couple of changes to Ohio’s Educational Choice Scholarship Program. First, it raised the maximum amount allotted for students in grades nine through twelve from $5,000 to $5,700. This desperately needed increase brings EdChoice funding up to the same amount that’s awarded through the Cleveland Scholarship Program. It’s also common sense, as high schools are more expensive than elementary and middle schools. Second, it changed the basis of EdChoice eligibility. Current law dictates that one of the ways a student can establish eligibility for EdChoice is by being assigned to a school that has, for at least two of the previous three years, been ranked in the lowest 10 percent of all public school buildings—including charter schools and STEM schools—according to a performance index score. Kasich’s budget changes the law so that the list of schools used to calculate the lowest 10 percent of school buildings includes only those operated by school districts. After all, EdChoice eligibility depends on the district school a student is assigned to, so this change limits the calculation to eligible schools. The change could result in a small increase in the number of eligible students, since poor-performing charters and STEM schools were bumping some of the worst district schools off the eligibility list. Kasich’s proposal is an effort to increase options for families. To its credit, the House opted not to change it.
The biggest potential change to EdChoice, though, isn’t really about vouchers or school choice—it’s about the effects of safe harbor provisions. The House’s version of the budget extended safe harbor protections from PARCC (or whatever our future assessments will be if PARCC is jettisoned) for an additional two years for school districts, teachers, and students. This is problematic because EdChoice eligibility is largely tied to school building performance. If school grades aren’t calculated or don’t have ramifications because of safe harbor provisions, then Ohio will essentially be freezing eligibility for its flagship voucher program. This must be addressed by the governor or the General Assembly. Students attending Ohio’s lowest-rated schools simply can’t afford—and shouldn’t be asked—to wait for the state to transition to a new assessment. This might even be a good time for Ohio to move to a means-tested scholarship—like most states with vouchers already use—and away from what is typically referred to as a “failing schools model” voucher, which comes with a complicated eligibility framework.
Shared attribution
Shared attribution is the practice of evaluating teachers based on test scores from subjects other than those they teach. It’s an unfair method of evaluation (what teacher—or any professional—would want to be evaluated based on something they have no control over?), particularly when there are far better ways to evaluate teachers. Kasich’s budget explicitly states that if a class is outside the core subjects and value-added or alternative measures are not available for teacher evaluation purposes (as in the case of art or music teachers), boards must use shared attribution. Luckily, the House removed this provision.
***
While the media pays close attention to hot topics like the “winners and losers”—or the “winners and bigger winners,” as is the case this year—of school funding, it’s important to pay attention to these other seemingly small issues that could have a massive impact on education in the Buckeye State.
