Like Moses in the wilderness, state policymakers have to cope with incessant grumbling—in their case over standardized testing. Last year, Ohio legislators compromised on testing and accountability, including delaying the implementation of Ohio’s new school report cards, waiving the consequences for poor performance in the 2014–15 school year, ditching the Algebra II end-of-course exam, and tweaking the teacher evaluation system by allowing schools to reduce the weight of the test-based accountability measure.
As the new General Assembly gears up in 2015, lawmakers will face even greater pressure to water down testing and accountability. Already, two high-priority bills have been introduced with provisions that, if passed, would further weaken Ohio’s new testing and accountability framework. The first provision is a test-time cap; the second is a delay on the stakes associated with Ohio’s new high school tests. Both provisions, while politically popular and seemingly insignificant, are flawed and should be rejected.
Test-time caps
Senate Bill 3 is designed to identify areas ripe for deregulation in education—a needed and overdue endeavor. Some of the recommendations in the bill are sound, like eliminating the needless third-grade test given in the fall. But one recommendation is a hard cap on testing time: No more than 2 percent of a student’s school year can be dedicated to state and district standardized tests, and less than 1 percent can be used to prepare for them (i.e., time taken on “practice” or “diagnostic” tests). If passed, the cap would apply starting in 2015–16.[1]
There are several problems with these provisions. First, the hard cap at 2 percent has the potential to cause trouble at the high school level. As the table below displays, while fifth graders who take three required state exams are under the 2 percent cap, under certain conditions, high school students are at the cap—technically over by a smidgen—if they take five of the end-of-course exams (EOCs) in one year. Why should the state potentially deny any high school student who wants (or needs) to take five or more of the seven EOCs in a single school year? In a bill that seeks to give greater flexibility to schools, it is ironic that the state would set a cap on testing time that could box-in high schools and their students.
[[{"fid":"114051","view_mode":"default","fields":{"format":"default"},"type":"media","link_text":null,"attributes":{"class":"media-element file-default"}}]]
Source: Ohio Department of Education, Guidance on PARCC/AIR Session Times and Guidance on Schedule Change from Days to Hours Note: The EOCs are being phased in this year, with high school freshman (class of 2018) being the first cohort to take the new assessments.
Second, the 1 percent cap on test preparation micromanages school time. Although it is much maligned these days, not all test prep is bad; in fact, done well, it may actually enhance learning. For example, my entire AP U.S. history class was structured as year-long test prep, with practice tests along the way. What if a school wanted to design its curriculum and “practice” tests around readying students for PARCC or the EOCs? Is this instructional strategy now outlawed? While there may be reason enough to cut certain types of “test prep,” this should not be a regulatory role of the state (probably the duty of principals to monitor). In fact, the cap on test preparation is yet another case of government overreach into how local schools are run.
Finally, even if we agreed that hard test-time caps were absolutely necessary and that the state must intervene, how would state authorities enforce it? Would the provision force teachers to painstakingly document how class time is used (as if there aren’t enough paperwork requirements already)? Would the state need to hire auditors to investigate districts’ compliance? And if a school exceeds the cap, what is the penalty—curriculum jail?
The testing cap has good intentions, aiming to alleviate a public concern. But the law also has some potential negative consequences that are the exact opposite of deregulation. Moreover, there are more dubious uses of school time than testing (pep rallies, study halls, and movies all come to mind). Someone—just not the state—ought to put a cap on these things!
Delaying the stakes on the graduation exams
The House has also introduced emergency legislation (House Bill 7) that would automatically render immaterial the 2014–15 results on high school students’ EOCs as they apply to their graduation requirements. (Starting with this year’s freshman—the class of 2018—students are now required to reach a cumulative score on the seven EOCs to graduate or seek an alternative pathway to graduation.)
The bill appears at least partly motivated by Common Core opponents who want to shelter students from the consequences of “opting out” of state testing. (The bill allows retakes on an EOC if students are absent “for any reason.”) State lawmakers should not endorse this approach, since it encourages teenagers to gamble with their futures. Imagine you’re a ninth-grade student opting out of your EOCs, hoping to get a high enough ACT score to graduate (an alternative pathway). But you fall short on the ACT as a junior. You’ll have to take the EOCs again in twelfth grade with your diploma on the line—three years after you completed the course. Talk about high stakes
Meanwhile, as the bill voids all 2014–15 EOC scores, what about the students who do well on this year’s EOCs? Shouldn’t their test results be applied favorably toward their graduation requirements? The students worked hard for their test scores, and the state should not deny them credit. In their haste to satisfy a special-interest group (“opt outers”), state legislators seem to have forgotten about the thousands of Ohio students who will do well on their EOCs this year.
The debate over standardized testing has reached a fever pitch. But this is nothing new. Adults have disdained tests for years, maybe more so than the students who take them. In 2004, for instance, the Dayton Daily News reported the great consternation over the brand-new Ohio Graduation Tests. One professor even called these new exams “an unvarnished instance of testing immorality.” Funny how history repeats itself; today, state testing is again the villain—and that’s okay. But we need to do testing and accountability right. No more grumping, delaying, diluting, and capping state tests. Bring on the state’s new college-and-career ready tests; Ohio’s youngsters are up to the task.
[1] Additional testing related to the third-grade reading guarantee, tests given to students with special needs or limited English proficiency, and AP/IB high school exams, taken as substitutes for the state EOCs, would not count against the cap. The state has also created a loophole whereby a district board can waive the state cap on testing time.
