Diana M. Fessler

The following analysis, and proposed amendments are offered for your consideration.

• DEFINITION OF SCHOOL DISTRICT DELETED: Section 3302.01 is being repealed: "As used in this chapter, "school district" means any city, local, exempted village, or joint vocational school district." [The bill must be AMENDED to include a definition of "school district." The ODE's proposed definition of a school district is "anyplace where instruction and assessment take place." That definition is too broad; it would include the YMCA, a doctor's office, or Bungee jumping establishments, i.e., they provide instruction and the assessment is whether you break your neck or not.]

• "HIGH SCHOOL" and 12^TH GRADE TEST: The State Board of Education (SBE) shall adopt rules to ensure that students receiving a diploma have demonstrated at least high school levels of proficiency that are expected of students at the end of the tenth grade. (103-113, these numbers are the line numbers in Sub. SB 55). The board shall set the score that indicates proficiency in writing, math, science, and citizenship and prescribe HIGH SCHOOL PROFICIENCY (10^th) tests and required score. (115-153). [Why we would equate the 10^th grade test with HIGH SCHOOL PROFICIENCY and still have a 12^th grade test? Within a few years, legislators will decry the fact that Ohio graduates are only required to pass a 10^th grade test. The bill should be AMENDED to delete the indication that High School equals 10^th grade proficiency.]

• PROFICIENCY TEST AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION: Beginning July 1, 1999, proficiency tests that were given during 1998 will be available for inspection by parents and teachers. (501-506). [For those who express horror that parents would "see and tell" I can only respond with a reminder that students actually do talk to one another; test security, in terms of parent access, is simply nonsense. Parental access is a start, but it should be expanded to include access to the test that their child will be taking, and the answers that are considered correct by the state; otherwise parents and teachers will continue to be in the dark regarding these tests. The bill should be AMENDED to require that all tests questions to be objective, not subjective, and further AMENDED to abolish the scoring rubrics that allow partial credit for wrong answers. The bill should be further AMENDED to require grading of the spelling, punctuation and grammar portions of the test to be based on right or wrong answers thereby abolishing the current scoring that gives partial credit for answers. Ideally, subjective criterion-referenced proficiency tests will be forever abolished and replaced with objective, norm-referenced standardized academic achievement test. To that end, the bill should be AMENDED to require, as has been done in other states, a complete audit of the tests.

• SBE ADOPTED INDICATORS REPEALED: "The state board of education shall adopt rules that include the following: (A) Standards defining indicators for establishing levels of school district and school building performance. These performance indicators shall be measurable and may include such indicators as graduation rates, attendance rates, dropout rates, and levels of literacy and basic competency as assessed under sections 3301.0710 and 3301.0711 of the Revised Code. [The bill should be AMENDED to re-insert this section.]

• THE OFFICE OF EDUCATION ACCOUNTABILITY AND PERFORMANCE (OEAP): "When sufficient data" from the tests are available, standards will be established by the ODE and the Office of Education Accountability and Performance (OEAP). [I presume this is in reference to the attempted repeal in the previous paragraph. We've been giving these tests for seven years; what amount of data is deemed "sufficient"?] ODE/OEAP shall then propose a rule [to whom?] adding standards to reflect additional tests (4^th, 6^th, and 10^th). [This section needs significant clarification. (lines 611-622). The phase-out language is repeated at (624-636) with the proposed rules being approved by the General Assembly. Every three years, using a three-year average, the ODE shall report for each school district its percentages on the 18 indicators (test scores, graduation rates, and drop out rate). The report shall specify, for each district, the extent of acceptable performance achieved and which of four categories the district falls into [638-647] [The bill should be AMENDED to require the report building-by-building rather than by district. Otherwise, the report will have little concrete value to parents and community members.]

• OEAP'S GOVERNING COUNCIL: To understand the scope of the OEAP, House members must be familiar with Amended H.B. 412. When it left the House it was a one-page bill. As of today, it is 39 pages. Included in it is the creation of OEAP's six-member, appointed, Governing Council, two of which will be Goff and Browning. The bill is silent regarding qualifications the appointees who will issue policies to guide OEAP and to oversee collection and analysis of district performance and fiscal data. [This work is currently being done by ODE/SBE]. A Director will be appointed by Browning. The Council, but not OEAP, will cease to exist after Jan. 1, 2001 unless it is renewed by law. [1359 of HB 412].

• OEAP AND SITE-BASED MANAGEMENT: OEAP will adopt rules requiring districts with an ADM over 5,000 to designate one building for operation by a site-based management council. [1189] The rules shall specify how members will be selected and list the powers, duties, functions, and responsibilities to be vested in the Council that would otherwise be exercised by the school board. [1197] A district can submit an alternative plan to the Director of OEAP delineating the "respective" powers, duties, functions, and responsibilities of the board and of the Council. If the Director determines that the Council will be assigned "meaningful powers, duties, functions, and responsibilities" the plan will be approved. [Mandating site-based management councils further erodes local control: Parents are, at times, hard pressed to get elected officials to take needed action, but at least elected officials can be voted out of office. What recourse will parents have when the "power, duties, functions, and responsibilities" of the elected board are vested in a Council? The bill should be AMENDED to delete site-based management councils. If people want to "manage" the district, let them run for office. In addition, we need to stop telling boards not to micro-manage.

• FIVE CATEGORIES OF PERFORMANCE:
  • An Effective district (for the purpose of this paper, is an A+ district) meets between 94% and 100% of the 18 indicators. [649]
  • In Need of Continuous Improvement = B label indicates that the district meets between 51% and 93% of the 18 indicators. [The label In Need of Continuous Improvement should be changed; it is demeaning to districts that are, in light of the scale, above average or deemed outstanding by national standards, i.e., National Blue Ribbon Schools.] [653]
  • The Academic Watch = C label indicates that the district meets between 34% and 50% of the 18 indicators. [658]
  • The Academic Emergency = D label indicates that the district met less than 33% of the 18 indicators.
  • Elsewhere in the document, mention is made of Academic Failure = F districts.

By March of next year, the SBE/ OEAP is supposed to adopt rules to establish: [672]

• the required standard unit of improvement that districts must meet on any standard that it failed to meet to demonstrate "satisfactory improvement" toward meeting the "standard" [It is unclear which "standard" is being referenced.]
• the percentage of performance standards that were not met by a district, upon which the district will be required to achieve the "unit of improvement" to demonstrate that it is making overall progress toward becoming an "effective" district. [The bill should be AMENDED to include the precise definition of "unit of improvement" and the percentage of standards that must be achieved to show progress. The ODE/SBE has already developed the formula for "standard unit of improvement."

• CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT PLANS: The In Need of Continuous Improvement = B and Under Academic Watch = C districts shall develop 3-year continuous improvement plans that contains:
  • an analysis of the reasons for the failure;
  • specify the strategies to use to address the problem;
  • specify resources it will allocate to address the problem. [696-702]

The plans must be filed with the ODE. At the end of the term covered by the plan, the ODE determines whether the district achieved the required improvement. If they didn't, during the 3-yr. period, the ODE will assign someone to "assist" the district in developing a new plan for the next 3-yrs. Then, every 3-years in which the district doesn't attain the required improvement [undefined] the ODE will make an on-site evaluation and develop a plan for the district. [703-721] [The bill should be AMENDED to release the B districts from the continuous improvement planning cycle.]

When a district is notified by the ODE that it falls in the Academic Emergency = D designation, the district shall develop, and annually update, a continuous improvement plan containing

• an analysis of the reasons for the failure
• specify the strategies it will use, and
• the resources it will allocate to address the problem. [The same plan that B's and C's had to comply with.]

Their plans must be filed with the ODE, etc. etc. etc. and it must continue under the plan until it attains the Needing Continuous Improvement = B or Academic Watch = C label and then submit yet another 3 year plan.[749]

John Goff, shall conduct an on-site evaluation of the Academic Emergency = D districts that fail to demonstrate improvement. [The bill should be AMENDED to require on-site evaluations of all districts. Ted Sanders suspended evaluations about five years ago. ] "The evaluation shall examine the documentation" and do one of the following: [what does that mean?]

• specify modifications in the plan for the district to immediately adopt;
• direct an independent audit, paid for by the district, and require the district to implement the findings of the audit.

If Academic Emergency = D districts fail to show the required improvement for 2 consecutive years or for 3-years of any 5-year period, Goff may declare the district to be in need of "state assistance" and assign a "monitor" to assist the district in modifying and implementing the continuing improvement plan. The school board shall adopt no policy without the approval of the state monitor. The monitor shall serve until the district attains Effective status. (775) [To be set free from a state monitor, would require the district to go from being in the F category to the A category - a highly unlikely event. Accordingly, the district will have a state monitor forever. The bill should be AMENDED to provide that school boards in districts that fall into the D category, be permitted to make significant changes in classroom teachers.]

If the district, even with state monitoring, fails, in any year, to make the required improvement, Goff shall hold a public hearing to determine whether the district shall be labeled F = Academic Failure. If the district is declared a chronic failure in improvement and lacking a cohesive or committed board and management structure likely to effect changes necessary for improvement, Goff shall appoint a commission to assume any duties of the board. [777-790]

• ZERO TOLERANCE: By July of next year, school boards shall adopt a zero tolerance policy regarding violent, disruptive, or inappropriate behavior, including excessive truancy, and establish strategies to address such behaviors that range from prevention to intervention. [884] [What constitutes inappropriate behavior?]

• ALTERNATIVE SCHOOLS: By July of next year, each of the eight urban districts shall establish at least one alternative school to meet the educational needs of students with severe discipline problems, including, but not limited to, excessive truancy, excessive disruption in the classroom, and multiple suspensions or expulsions. Other districts with a substandard graduation rate, shall also establish such schools. [905] [How many districts are included in this "substandard category?]

• SIMULATION DATA FLAWED: [The simulation offered by ODE/Augenblick showing where the 611 districts fall is, by all accounts, fatally flawed. I do not believe that Cincinnati Public has a 0.88% dropout rate, Dayton 7.76% while Cleveland's rate is 31.22%. I cannot imagine how the legislature can move forward without ACCURATE data. Thus, the joint resolutions should be withdrawn as they are doomed to defeat since the foundation upon which they were built has crumbled.]

• GRADUATION REQUIREMENTS: Graduation requirements for "every" high school are being increased from 18 to 20 units. [The bill does not use the term Carnegie to describe the units. The Carnegie Units should be maintained as they are the guarantee that students will receive a minimum about of instruction in a given subject. Science and social studies requirements are being increased. However, the president of the AFT, Ron Marec testified that "Ohio's science and social studies models are unusable." It is illogical to increase the use of unusable models. As such, the increase in social studies and science requirements should be delayed until the models are revised. The bill should be AMENDED to require the SBE to revise the models immediately.]

• FOREIGN LANGUAGE AND ART: The DeRolph decision requires that schools provide students with opportunities. Opportunity and compulsion are entirely different. Proponent testimony said research "suggests" and "other states require the study of." Suggestive research should not drive legislation nor should the fact that some states require students to study foreign language and art become the basis for compelling Ohio students to demonstrate competency in foreign language or art to graduate. In addition, if foreign language and art become requirements for graduation, the state, via local districts, will be compelled to provide intervention ($$$) to help students that are struggling. And, finally, a memo written by a superintendent to fellow superintendents, assistant superintendents, and curriculum directors reads as follows:

"Have any of you started your Comprehensive Arts Course of Study using the new model? We have found it so esoteric that veteran teachers are reading it with a dictionary at their side. How would new teachers be able to use the course of study to drive their instruction? Are you using the new model plus a separate guide for each area (art, drama, dance, vocal, and instrumental music) or just using the comprehensive model? HELP!"

• ADVANCED CREDIT: Districts "may" permit students below the 9^th grade to take advanced "work" for credit. The "work" must be taught by a person certified or licensed by the state. The district must designate the "work" as meeting high school curriculum requirements. [Don't all high school courses meet "high school curriculum requirements"?]

• INTEGRATED INSTRUCTION: English language arts, math, science, and social studies that are "delivered through integrated academic and technical instruction" are eligible to meet credits/units required for graduation. [The result of such integrated instruction is that the 120 hours of required instruction is being diluted, not doubled. In addition, integration of "technical" instruction with academic instruction leaves the door wide open for applied math, science, etc. The math that one needs to work at McDonald's cannot be equated with a 120 hour course in Algebra II, etc. Therefore, the bill should be AMENDED to require a floor of non-diluted subject matter teaching. In this regard, it is important to note that the Standards for Ohio Schools document makes provision for "shared certification" meaning that a math teacher can teach social studies and visa versa. Such an arrangement further erodes the time a student will be taught subject matter by a person qualified to teach the subject matter.]

• PROMOTIONS WITHHELD: Districts shall not promote 4^th graders who fail to pass the 4^th grade reading test unless the student was excused from taking the test in the first place, or if the student has already repeated the 4^th grade at least once and the principal and the "reading teacher" agree that the student is "academically prepared" for promotion to 5^th grade. [I don't think the teacher licensure regulations make any provision for a category such as "reading teacher."] [977] Districts shall adopt a grade promotion and retention policy. The policy shall prohibit the promotion of a student to the next grade if the student has been absent without excuse for more than 10% of the required attendance days AND has failed two or more subjects UNLESS the principal and the teacher agree that the student is academically prepared as defined by that district's standard. [What are the financial ramifications of holding all of these students back?][1054]

• READING ASSESSMENT, INTERVENTION, AND INTERVENTION: Beginning in July of next year, districts shall adopt policies and procedures to annually assess each first, second, and third grade student and identify those who are reading below grade level and provide "intervention." (1002) [Intervention is undefined.] "Intensive remediation services" shall be provided during the summer following the third grade. [Intensive remediation services is undefined. Does it mean more whole language, i.e., Reading Recovery ($$$$$), or intensive systematic phonics?] If at the end of the 4^th grade, the student doesn't pass the proficiency test in reading, more "intense remediation services" will be provided and the student will take the test again in the summer. (1018)
• SBE/BOARD OF REGENTS JOINT COUNCIL: [The bill should be AMENDED to delete all references to this joint council. Should it, or the OEAP remain in either 55 or 412, I will zealously do all that I can to defeat the bills and the funding for them. In addition, please be advised that THE JOINT COUNCIL ALREADY EXISTS AND THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS WERE PUBLISHED IN A TOTAL APPROACH: IMPROVING COLLEGE PREPARATION IN OHIO. The June, 1997 report is available from the ODE and the Board of Regents. THE WORK HAS BEEN DONE, WITHOUT COMPULSION OF LAW SO WHAT'S THE POINT IN CODIFYING THE JOINT COUNCIL BUT EVEN IF THERE IS MORE WORK TO BE DONE, THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY DOESN'T NEED TO PASS A LAW REQUIRING IT. In addition, this section sunsets the SBE. The bill should be AMENDED to return the board to a fully-elected status. The standards that have presented to the General Assembly are the product of a hybrid board of 8 appointed and 11 elected members. Without the votes of the appointed board, the vote would have been seven to four with great potential for the needed two vote shift to reject the standards in their present form. However, with the 8-member solid block of appointed votes, the board is effectively neutered.

I would be happy to clarify and/or discuss the points with you.