| |
(This response is not the policy of the State Board,
rather it was prepared to clarify various issues raised in Mrs. Fessler's report.)
Ohio Department of Education
A RESPONSE TO
Mrs. Diana M. Fessler's Document
"A Report on the Work toward National Standards,
Assessments, and Certificates"
The Power of an Idea
The basic premise of Mrs. Fessler's report is her concern that the National Center on
Education and the Economy's (NCEE) agenda is going to be implemented nationally. According
to her, this is occurring now through the NCEE'S New Standard initiative and federal
SchooltoWork legislation and will continue to roll out if new workforce development
legislation is passed that provides for block grant funding of state and local workforce
development and training programs.
The policy arena of workforce development has been relatively prominent in recent years
given such work as that of the Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills
(SCANS), the NCEE, and the Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce and their
report High Skills, Low Wages published in 1990. At the vortex of this debate has
been the question of whether we are adequately preparing both the future and current
workforce for the jobs of today and tomorrow. There are those in this country who
fundamentally believe that if we do not adequately address this issue now, the future of
the United States as an economic and political world leader is in question. Jobs requiring
lower skills levels have already been or will soon be "exported" to countries
where workers will perform them for onetenth to onethird the wage. The power of this
idea has resonated across the country with people representing many diverse walks of life.
As Mrs. Fessler noted in her report, the NCEE has put forth some specific recommendations
about how this issue can be addressed, including, for example, support for national
standards and assessments, a Certificate of Initial Mastery, and labor market boards. What
is not presented, however, is that NCEE's recommendations have not been adopted
cookiecutterstyle state by state. What has occurred is an ongoing debate at the
national, state, and local level about what the role of education is in preparing the
future workforce and how we can better assure improved results that prepare youth and
adults for success.
For example, not any of the state partners in the New Standards Project she references
not lowa, Kentucky, Oregon, or any other has adopted new standards reference exams or
established a certificate of initial mastery or adopted any part of their assessment
system without open public debate on the issues. It has been a dialogue. And, according to
Roger Trent, the Ohio Department of Education's inhouse assessment "expert,"
no state has adopted New Standards assessment instruments as part of a statewide, every
pupil assessment system. Virtually all state partners have involved only a handful of
volunteer districts in this work.
Mrs. Fessler's report also fails to acknowledge that "member" states and
districts have come and gone over the period of time since the partnerships were first
formed. Several "charter members" have discontinued their relationship for a
variety of reasons. Over time, a few new ones have joined. Participation has been and
continues to be voluntary. This record speaks for itself.
The concerns about the skill levels of the nation's workforce raised by the NCEE are real
in the minds of many. The solutions to those challenges, however, continue to be debated
across the country.
Public Debate in Ohio on Standards and Assessments
In her report, Mrs. Fessler raises some concerns about the lack of debate in Ohio on
"national content, performance or assessment standards, and/or Certificates of
Initial Mastery' (page 32). She goes on to state that "the result of this grievous
omission is that the necessary groundwork for The System continues to be laid in
Ohio without the informed consent of elected representatives of the People."
Mrs. Fessler also references the proposed Standards for Ohio Schools in her cover
letter to the State Board as well as in other places in the document and links that
work to NCEE's agenda.
Where we are now as a state vis a vis our education agenda has necessarily been informed
by specific actions taken or decisions made by the State Board of Education, the Ohio
General Assembly, and others over the past decade or more. For example, as has been shared
on previous occasions, Ohio's decision to establish a performance based system of
education was initiated through legislative action enacted in 1987. H.B. 231 established
both 9th and 12th
grade proficiency tests in writing, mathematics, reading and citizenship. This step by the
Ohio General Assembly was further reinforced when S.B. 140 was passed requiring the
adoption of compatible state and local competency based education programs in language
arts, composition, and mathematics. S.B. 140 also laid the groundwork for the
identification of excellent and deficient school districts and buildings, an issue that
will be further debated during the upcoming dialogue on the proposed Standards for
Ohio Schools.
Moreover, Am. Sub. H.B.'s 55 and 152 passed in 1992 and 1993 respectively
further extended these policies by (a) eliminating mandated achievement testing, (b)
expanding proficiency testing to grades 4 and 6, (c) including science at all four
grades,and (d) substituting a regular diploma and Diploma with Honors for the earlier
enacted "fourtiered diploma" system. Am. Sub. H.B. 55, in particular, was
debated extensively before being enacted by the legislature.
Specifically with regard to Ohio's proficiency tests, in November 1988 following four
months of public debate involving thousands of Ohio parents, educators, and other citizens
the State Board adopted the outcomes that are measured by NinthGrade Proficiency
Tests. One month later, following five months of debate, they adopted the outcomes
measured by TwelfthGrade Proficiency Tests. Similar procedures were then followed as
outcomes were adopted for fourthgrade and sixthgrade tests and for science tests at
all four grades, and as score standards were set for each test area at each grade level.
In fact, proposed lists of outcomes and/or proposed score standards were brought forward
to the Board at least one month prior to bringing a resolution to adopt for the sole
purpose of providing an opportunity for all voices to be heard on each such matter before
the Board took action. The performancebased direction proposed in the new standards
under consideration by the Board are not new. What began with CBE requirements in the 1983
standards and evolved over time to the current proposed standards has been debated in an
ongoing fashion long before 1992, but also many times since then. Ohio's State Board
and its General Assembly have been and will continue to be active participants in helping
to shape the direction for education reform in this state and in providing a forum for
public input. Clear evidence of this will be seen as the State Board discusses the
proposed new Standards for Ohio Schools and, then depending on the outcome of that
dialogue, seeks legislative concurrence on this work.
Linkage to New Teacher Education and Licensure Standards
On page 39, Mrs. Fessler makes a direct reference to Ohio's Teacher Education and
Licensure Standards recently adopted by the State Board. She states, "Since
everything is linked, how are teacher education and licensure standards linked to NCEE? In
Ohio, a college or university desiring to prepare teachers must meet the standards of an
external entity, the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE)...
Further research will be required to establish the link between NCEE and NCATE..."
She then goes on to raise issues related to both NTE and PRAXIS III.
The need for new standards for Ohio colleges and universities as well as for schools
emerged as a part of the public debate on educational improvement in Ohio occurring in
1992 and previously. With the acceptance of those new teacher licensure standards last
year by the State Board, Ohio's institutions of higher education will need to meet the
standards of the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). To
suggest that "further investigation" is needed before determining collusion with
the NCEE and NCATE belies the fact that NCATE has been in existence since 1954. As such,
the organization is a coalition of 30 constituent member organizations of teachers,
teacher educators, policymakers, and school specialists who implement a peer review system
of accreditation.
NCATE accreditation responds to the public's expectations that colleges of education
should be professionally accredited and meet rigorous standards. In arecent public
opinion poll conducted by Penn and Schoen, 82% of the public favors requiring teachers to
graduate from nationally accredited professional schools.
Another critical feature of Ohio's Teacher Education and Licensure Standards is the
requirement that initial licensure will be granted only after candidates have passed a
performance based assessment. The Educational Testing Service (ETS) has been providing the
National Teacher Examination which Ohio has been using. The NTE has evolved into a revised
set of examinations known as PRAXIS I, II, and lilt PRAXIS II is what has been previously
known as the NTE.
PRAXIS II is the performance based assessment completed by candidates during the first
year of their employment. Given that it is the only existing instrument that is valid and
reliable for determining the minimal competencies for initial licensure, why would Ohio
consider other options? It is important to stress that these tests are developed by ETS.
Mrs. Fessler seems to suggest that the NTE is ETSdeveloped while PRAXIS is developed by
some other entity. The State Board will play a critical role in determining the cut scores
for successful passage of the PRAXIS III.
Ohio's SchooltoWork Initiative: Providing an Opportunity for all
In her report, Mrs. Fessler also makes numerous references to Ohio's SchooltoWork
initiative, drawing from the federal Implementation Grant application submitted to the
U.S. Department of Labor in the summer of 1995. The following is to address major points
raised as they specifically relate to this issue.
1. Individual Career Plan and Passport: In the document, Mrs. Fessler seems to be
confused about the distinction between the Individual Career Plan (ICP) and the Career
Passport. The ICP does not provide "information to employers, colleges, and
training institutions for screening, interviewing, and selecting applicants" (page
27). Rather, it is a planning tool for students to use in determining the academic
program they would like to pursue in high school based on their potential career
interests. The Passport is the document which she may have been referencing on that page
it is a tool that is developed by high school junior and seniors to effectively
communicate their knowledge and skills as they begin to seek work or continued education
beyond high school. The Career Passport is a studentdriven document.
2. Certificate of Initial Mastery: One of the references made by Mrs. Fessler
concerns the exploration of the need for a Certificate of Initial Mastery in Ohio (page
28). That reference is true as reads... explore the need does not mean implement.
Any discussion on this issue would be within the context of the work of Ohio's State Board
of Education.
3. Occupational Training: While an understanding of different occupations is part
of the career development system for Kindergarten through high school, clearly the
"occupational training" implied by Mrs. Fessler in her Note on page 29 is
misleading. Bringing your local police officer or fireman or nurse into the school has
always been a part of the educational process. Helping children-including those in
kindergarten and elementary school-understand the jobs people have is an important way of
connecting them to their larger community. STW-as well as apprenticeships, vocational and
other such educational programs-do provide the opportunity for handson
occupational training for those students who choose to participate and who are
clearly of an age to do so safely (high school years).
4. Youth Centers: While the NCEE advocated the creation of Youth Centers in its
report High Skills or Low Wages, Youth Centers have never been discussed as
a part of STW in Ohio.
5. A Mandate for All: An implication is made in Mrs. Fessler's document that STW
would be a mandate for all students. STW is for all students. This does not mean
that every student must participate, but rather that all students have access and
opportunity. In numerous written documents on Ohio's STW Initiative, assuring the
opportunity for all students is clearly communicated, leaving the decision to participate
to individual students and their parents. This is true of such critical STW activities as
the Individual Career Plan, the Career Passport, and workbased reaming experiences.
In closing, Mrs. Fessler states the following on the second to last page of her document:
"Traditionally, the purpose of education has been to transfer the general knowledge,
wisdom, and values of the previous generation to the young and to equip them to realize
their potential. It is well known that only in a totalitarian system is education linked
directly to the workplace."
First, it is misleading to say that only totalitarian systems link education directly to
work. Indeed, there are numerous western democratic societies-England, Germany, Norway,
and Denmark, to name a few-which have addressed this issue of directly connecting school
to work in their educational systems. Moreover, this issue has always been a dimension of
education, even in this country. Very few of our young people will not need to work at
some point in their lives. It is common sense to better prepare them for that future so
that they can be successful.
The State Board of Education and others in Ohio and across the nation will continue to
wrestle with the relationship of school to work over the coming months and years ahead. It
is an issue that will resonate in our current and future efforts to improve education for
all children and will be informed by all members of our society including parents,
educators, employers, students, and community leaders.
Back Home
| |
|