The Education Gadfly Weekly

Note: This blog originally appeared in a slightly different form as a guest commentary in the Cleveland Plain-Dealer.

The State Board of Education recently advised the legislature to make changes to Ohio’s new and more rigorous graduation requirements amid concerns from school people about lower graduation rates. The board’s recommendations, based on a workgroup convened by the board, are out, and they’re deeply disquieting. Put into practice, they’d break the repeated promise of policy makers to raise expectations for Ohio’s 1.7 million students.

Currently, students in the class of 2018 and beyond have three paths to a diploma. They may: 1) achieve a passing cumulative score on seven end-of-course (EOC) exams in the four core subjects of math, English, social studies, and science; 2) achieve a “remediation-free” ACT or SAT score; or 3) complete career and technical education requirements that include earning an industry recognized credential. These are stronger than the state’s old graduation standards, which included the antiquated, middle-school level Ohio Graduation Tests (OGT) and are a key part of the Buckeye State’s robust effort to ensure that students leave high school ready to succeed in college or start a career.

Unfortunately, what the board suggests would not just undercut Ohio’s efforts to raise the bar for all students—it would remove the bar entirely. Its recommendations would make it virtually impossible for colleges and employers to know whether a young person has truly gained the knowledge and skills needed to be successful after high school. This diploma devaluation will hurt all students, but it will sting most for young people who, through determination, ambition, and hard work, are now meeting the higher state expectations.

The recommendations ignore the end-of-course exams and would let students graduate if they meet any two of these eight conditions:

• 93 percent attendance during senior year.
• 2.5 grade point average for senior year courses.
• Complete a “capstone” senior project.
• Complete 120 hours of work/community service during senior year.
• Earn 9 points on the WorkKeys exams (a job skills test).
• Earn an industry recognized credential.
• Complete a College Credit Plus course.
• Complete an AP/IB course and earn credit-bearing score on the AP/IB exam.

The last two options are likely irrelevant for this purpose. College Credit Plus (CCP) is specifically designed for pupils who are supposed to be college ready and AP/IB courses are intended for academically advanced pupils and require rigorous final exams. Students qualifying under CCP, AP, or IB should be expected to stroll through the EOC version of graduation requirements. The WorkKeys and industry credential alternatives are geared more towards students struggling to meet the graduation requirements under the career and technical education pathway rather than end of course exam pathway.

The problem lies in the other four options recommended by the State Board of Education.

• Student attendance is no more than showing up at school without regard to whether anything is learned there. Appallingly, this alternative gives credence to the archaic idea that student learning can be gauged by “seat time” rather than by demonstrated mastery of academic content. 
• Grade point average is especially problematic in an era of widespread grade inflation. We can’t be certain that a 2.5 GPA indicates that anyone is truly ready for college or career. A student could get barely passing grades in low-level courses and receive credit towards the diploma. This option also gives schools a perverse incentive to award students higher grades to boost their GPAs with no external monitoring or audit of either student or school. One may bleakly recall the episode when Columbus City Schools got caught manipulating grades to lift their graduation rates. In that case, district officials retroactively changed failing grades to passing, giving students course credit needed for graduation.
• Senior capstone projects suffer from similar problems as GPAs. Unless the state sets rigorous standards for capstone projects—including some type of enforcement or audit mechanism—schools have an incentive to approve shoddy work. Furthermore, having this option available might pressure schools to mandate capstone projects for all seniors when it’s not clear that every student would benefit.
• Work experience/community service can certainly benefit young people and help instill important values and skills needed for future success. Yet this option calls for a relatively modest commitment—equivalent to about six weeks of part-time work—and substitutes it for (rather than treating it as a supplement to) a student’s prowess in reading, writing, and math. The option also suffers from logistical nightmares, such as ensuring that all students have legitimate access to qualifying employment and service opportunities (and how to determine what qualifies) and how schools will track and verify their hours.

In sum, the State Board’s recommendations are awash in questionable options that are open to gaming and don’t assure us that young people are ready for success in college or career. They would undo the incentives currently in law for districts to focus on ways to improve their students’ mastery of math, government, history, science, and English. Students, especially low-income pupils who stand to benefit most from high expectations, will be the ultimate victims.

A far better alternative, as we’ve suggested before, is to create a tiered diploma system based on current graduation requirements. This wouldn’t cheapen Ohio’s diploma, but it would allow the state to issue different credentials based on the varied knowledge and skills with which students leave high school. Critically, an incentive would remain in place that can motivate students to reach a higher-level diploma that would signify to colleges and employers that they are well prepared for life after high school.

Ohio lawmakers should think twice—and twice again—before embracing these well-meant but ill-conceived recommendations. If the legislature goes along with the State Board of Education, it might as well confess that, when push comes to shove, preparing Ohio students for the demands of college and career is either too hard or not worth it. 

Can a student be so anxious that she can “psych herself out” when it comes to test performance? Can the perceived stakes be so high that no amount of test preparation could overcome the fear of failure? The interplay of the various components comprising these emotional patterns is the subject of a longitudinal study of college students undertaken by German researchers and published last month in the International Journal of Educational Research. Perhaps it’s not a one-to-one comparison, but given widespread concerns about test anxiety in the U.S. K-12 arena, perhaps this study offers some insight.

Researchers administered surveys to 92 students enrolled in a psychology course at the same university in Germany. These surveys were administered leading up to and after taking a required oral examination considered to be “one of the highest social evaluation stressors.” Surveys were administered again after students received their final grade for a total of three surveys. Their purpose was to gauge students’ academic self-efficacy (students’ beliefs regarding their ability to deal with high demands related to academic performance), their expected grade before the test, the relevance of success (how important it was to them to do well/pass), their received grade after the test, and their self-declared level of test anxiety (a “combination of worry- and emotionality-related adjectives”) at all three points. The various emotional and perceptual factors being studied here were correlated in a complex sequence. For example, researchers looked to see whether fear of failure was greater before taking the exam (when the student had some level of perceived control over the outcome) or after (when there was nothing to do but worry about the outcome), and correlated both with reported self-efficacy.

The findings, while limited by several factors, were interesting. Certain obvious correlations (students who viewed success on the test as more important were more likely to be anxious) were found to hold true, while certain surprises manifested as well. For instance, “text anxiety” levels were negatively correlated with final grade expected (anxiety affecting goals), although they were positively correlated with final grade received up to a point. Students who expressed more confidence in their ability to pass the test were more likely to pass than those with less confidence, but fear of failure was also positively correlated with test success, until the level of fear reached a “toxic” tipping point that began to inhibit success.

And therein lie some of the caveats. The fact that the students were all adults and likely had many high-stress test experiences under their belts likely influenced existing self-efficacy levels at least, if not other factors being measured. The small sample size, the dangers of self-reported data, and the focus on a single oral examination were also identified by the researchers as weaknesses in their study, which could be addressed in replication efforts.

So what might all this mean for those of us interested in American K-12 education? Boosting a child’s self-efficacy, helping her understand the true stakes of any given test, and minimizing her test anxiety are all the job of adults – teachers, counselors, principals, parents. Research such as this adds to the toolkits of adults tasked with the important job of supporting a student to her highest and best performance. Demonstration of ability – frequently under pressure of time or consequences—is unavoidable in adult life and the classroom is the perfect laboratory for children to learn to thrive in that world. Research such as this, replicated in an American K-12 setting, could provide invaluable tools in this important work.

Source: Julia Roick and Tobias Ringeisen, “Self-efficacy, test anxiety, and academic success: A longitudinal validation,” International Journal of Educational Research (March, 2017).

Of course you’re familiar with Fordham’s blogging and social media outlets. But did you know that Fordham staffers are regular guests on TV and radio programs across the state on important education issues?

Just recently:

• Chad Aldis has appeared on In Focus Ohio, a new public affairs program on Spectrum Cable, supporting a bill which would expand and transform the state’s voucher program.
• Chad was also a guest on The Sound of Ideas from IdeaStream Public Radio in Cleveland, urging Ohio to hold the line on new, more-rigorous graduation requirements.

These important issues will be at the forefront of debate in Ohio for months to come. We urge you to watch and listen as they are discussed in your part of the Buckeye State.

In a recent blog, we cast a critical eye on proposed changes in the budget bill to the College Credit Plus (CCP), a statewide program that provides qualified high school students with the opportunity to complete college coursework. The budget adds an additional eligibility constraint which requires prospective CCP students to be “remediation-free” on a specified assessment or close to remediation free and possessing a high grade point average or letter of reference.

We had concerns with the change because our analysis of current law suggested that only college ready students should be permitted to participate in the program. After all, the law already requires students to meet the college’s established standards for admission and course placement.

Feedback from our loyal Gadfly readers in the trenches suggests that, in reality, many students using CCP aren’t remediation free. While current law may have intended for college readiness to be a deciding factor in admission and course placement, the language is vague enough—especially with open-enrollment colleges—that some more muscle might be necessary to ensure students are qualified.

In previous posts , we’ve emphasized how important it is for the program to permit only college-ready students to enroll. Not only could letting unqualified students into CCP devalue college coursework [link to Checker’s piece] but it could also hurt students. CCP courses are factored into a student’s high school and college GPA—if a student earns a D in a CCP course, that grade appears on their high school and college transcripts.

To be clear, if the law isn’t working as we believe it was intended, we fully support the addition of a “remediation-free” threshold for students. This threshold would ensure that colleges are prohibited from enrolling unprepared students who aren’t ready for the rigor of college level coursework.   

We still have reservations about the provision which allows students who score “within one standard error of measurement below the remediation-free threshold” to be labeled remediation-free. As we mentioned in our prior piece, GPAs and counselor recommendations aren’t necessarily indicative of college readiness. The recommendation provision, in particular, is open to potential gaming.

But we also acknowledge that test scores aren’t always perfectly indicative of college readiness either. So, rather than calling for these provisions to be eliminated from the budget proposal, we instead suggest that the proposal be adopted as written. Once it becomes law, the state should carefully monitor the achievement of students who fall below the threshold but are still permitted to participate. If these students struggle mightily with their coursework or consistently earn poor grades, it may be wise to revise the language. Until there’s hard evidence, though, the remediation-free threshold provision remains the best solution for a very worrisome problem.

NOTE: The state board of education today debated the recent report of a graduation requirements workgroup. Among those providing testimony on the state’s high school graduation requirements was Chad L. Aldis, Vice President for Ohio Policy and Advocacy here at Fordham. The following are his written remarks.

Thank you, President Elshoff, Governor Hollister, and State Board members, for the opportunity to provide public comment today.

In December, I testified before this body and urged caution and thoughtfulness when dealing with the challenge posed by the new higher standards required to earn a high school diploma. Since then, a committee appointed by Superintendent DeMaria has delved into the issue and offered its recommendations. They’ve recommended that students in the class of 2018 complete 2 of 6 additional requirements,[1] and functionally, that any required measure of academic preparedness for the class of 2018 be eliminated.

If you endorse the committee’s work and recommend the legislature do the same, there will undoubtedly be educators and students around the state breathing a sigh of relief. On its face, it sounds like a win/win.

It won’t be; moreover, the consequences will be far reaching.

Ohio’s graduation rate will climb precipitously. It’ll likely jump from the low 80s to over 90 percent. Yet it will signify nothing. It will be a paper victory. Our students won’t be able to read better, they won’t have better math skills, and they won’t be better prepared to be citizens.

Last week in his State of the State, Governor Kasich talked about the jobs of the future. He talked about the level of preparation needed for those exciting new jobs. Don’t forget about the high-skill jobs currently available. We’ve all heard repeatedly that good jobs in Ohio remain unfilled as there aren’t enough qualified applicants. Rather than embracing the challenge ahead or taking advantage of current opportunities, this change would be a step backward.

The graduation requirements committee talked about the importance of 21^st-century skills that could go beyond test scores. I certainly wouldn’t disagree on their importance. Those 21^st-century skills that businesses are clamoring for should be a supplement to and not a replacement for basic academic skills. After all, there’s little demand in the workforce for people who think creatively, work well with others, and are functionally illiterate.

To this point, I’ve mostly talked about the macro impact of the proposed change, but the impact at the student and school level would potentially be even more harmful.

There are juniors right now on track for 14, 15, 16 points on their end-of-course exams. The current system is pushing them to improve their scores to hit the 18 point benchmark that this body established.

What does that really mean? They are working hard to read better, compute better, and develop a better understanding of United States history. That is, after all, what we want.

These students aren’t alone though. Their schools are likely helping them try to reach that bar with additional classes, focused efforts to improve skills, and tutoring.

If the EOC requirement goes away, the student incentive to hit a higher bar disappears and so do the academic supports.

The impact will be greatest on the very low-income students, whom this change has been publicly purported to help. They’ll get their high school diploma, but they won’t be better prepared for life after high school. Many will struggle to get accepted into post-secondary programs. Many of those who are accepted will require costly remedial education. Those entering the workforce directly may very well be required to prove their skills once there since employers will no longer be assured that diploma recipients have even a base level of academic preparation, and those wishing to serve their country in the military may struggle with the entrance examination.

The recommended change, while well-intentioned and endeavoring to resolve a challenging situation, would return to a policy that President Bush famously referred to as the soft bigotry of low expectations. It would take Ohio back almost twenty-five years to 1994, the last time a student could get an Ohio high school diploma without demonstrating a certain level of high school proficiency.

If we believe that every student can learn, our duty is to do everything we can do to help each student reach his or her potential. This change falls woefully short and should be rejected.

A new report from the RAND Corporation examines trends across 27 counties in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia where fracking is a booming business. Nine of these counties are in Eastern Ohio, including Mahoning, Stark, Belmont, and several others. This is the second of five periodic reports that track workforce, economic, and educational trends (the previous one is available here).The reports are commissioned by the Appalachian Partnership Initiative, whose aim is “to build the pool of local workers for jobs in the energy and advanced manufacturing sectors” across the tristate region.

This paper uses Census Bureau statistics to highlight a few key workforce trends:

• From 2000 to 2014, the working age-population (age 18-64) declined in 20 of the 27 counties across this region, including seven of the nine in Eastern Ohio.
• Wages were strong for workers in the extraction industries, which include oil and gas along with mining. Across this region, the average wage for employees in this industry was $58,290, higher than the averages in other fields such as health care ($28,690) or manufacturing ($43,967).
• Within the extraction industry, workers with higher-level education received higher wages: In 2015, college graduates (bachelor’s or above) earned about 37 percent more than those without a high school diploma.
• Roughly half of the workers in the extraction industry possess a high school degree or less.
• Most of the jobs in this industry are being filled by local workers, a sign that employers are thus far finding talent regionally. 

In short, oil and gas development has brought decent paying jobs for local workers of varying backgrounds. But can the region continue to meet employers’ demands over the long haul, especially for jobs that require higher levels of education? Not just in drilling per se, but also environmental engineers, surveyors, market analysts, land agents, and the other careers that support this industry? To look into this question, the report examines indicators from K-12 and higher education.

The analysts report eighth-grade NAEP science and math data from 2015. While they cannot isolate the NAEP data for students specifically from this region—they are reported at the statewide level—proficiency on these exams remains troubling. In Ohio, just 35 percent of eighth-graders reached proficiency in math and 38 percent in science. While slightly above the national averages, these data suggest that too few students are on track for post-secondary success in rigorous STEM majors, should they want to pursue that pathway. For a clearer depiction of achievement in this region, future RAND analyses should dig into the state-level data.

Speaking of higher education, the report also offers data from the post-secondary institutions located in these 27 counties. They find that less than 20 percent of college students seek degrees in STEM fields, including math, engineering, or chemistry. With respect to college completion (in any major), the researchers find that at four-year universities, just three in five students graduate. The completion rates nose-dive to a mere 12 percent at two-year institutions.

This report reminds us that the oil and gas industries offer well-paying jobs to capable workers. Individuals with varying educational backgrounds have benefitted as well: The developments have offered opportunities to many workers without higher education and those with college degrees. Yet in order for the region to fully capitalize, K-12 and higher education will need to equip more young people with the knowledge and skills needed to excel in STEM careers. Such is the challenge for the tristate region’s educational institutions but it’s one they can surely meet. 

Source: Gabriella C. Gonzalez, et al., Wages, Employment, and STEM Education in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia, RAND Corporation (2017).