Why the big rush on school standards?
The NEWS-HERALD - June 14, 1997
by Glenn Gilbert

It is understandable that some people would be suspicious of the Ohio Department of Education's push for adoption of new standards for the state's schools.

And it is a push. Lawmakers like Rep. Jamie Callender, R-Willowick, were offended when they learned last month that John M. Goff, state superintendent, was seeking quick legislative approval of mechanisms necessary to implement the 100-plus page document that embodies new standards for Ohio schools.

But Goff hasn't backed off. He makes no secret of the fact he wants action by mid-September so schools can implement the standards by September, 1998.

Critics say DOE is using the standards as a back-door approach to instituting outcome-based education. The state's role in advocating OBE created such a firestorm in 1993 that the legislature ordered DOE to drop it.

Instead, DOE focused on tightening standards for teachers. The General Assembly approved a new licensure system for teachers last November. In essence, the state told colleges how to train teachers, school districts how to mentor them, and implemented new continuing education requirements.

Ohio politicians can now brag they have the toughest standards for teachers in the country.

One man who is proud of the State Board of Education's role in adopting these standards for teachers is board member Oliver Ocasek. He feels the job was done correctly.

However, Ocasek, A Democrat whose district includes Geauga County, does not feel that way about the board's proposed "Standards for Ohio Schools." He was among those on the short end of the state board's 13-4 vote approving the standards. This is a surprise since he is accustomed to being in the majority. Ocasek, 71, has been in Ohio politics for 50 years. He is former president of the Ohio Senate, former chairman of the Senate Education committee and served two years as president of the State Board of Education.

Oliver Ocasek has learned a thing or two over the years. When he says, concerning the state board's work on the standards, that "we didn't finish the job," he ought to be listened to. He says they are not really standards, but goals. "We need specifics," Ocasek says. In particular, there needs to be a method of evaluating whether students meet whatever new achievement standards are adopted.

The state's system of proficiency testing measure achievement for the state's current standards, which require Ohio high school graduates to demonstrate basic levels of competence in English, math, science and social studies.

The proposed standards would raise the basic competence required in these areas to an intermediate level, and additionally require basic achievement in six other areas: foreign language, arts, business, technology, family and consumer science and health and physical education.

This is called raising the bar. It's the platitude of the age. Who can oppose efforts to teach students more and make them more competitive in today's global marketplace? When politicians say this, it sounds good. But Ocasek asks, "why are we rushing it?" He deserves an answer.

Ocasek identifies a dispute over Carnegie units as a key point of controversy. Carnegie units specify the amount of time a student must spend on a given subject. A unit is equal to 120 hours, the time usually spent each year on a topic.

The proposed new standards do not require Carnegie units, although local districts can still require them. The argument is that just sitting through a course does not equate to learning the material.

"They call it seat time," says Charles A. Byrne, another of the state board members who voted against the standards. "I don't buy that." Byrne's district includes most of Cuyahoga County.

Ocasek said there is value in sitting through instruction. For one thing, many students come from other states and they Carengie unit, recommended in 1918 by the Carnegie Foundation, is widely used. "Just because it's old doesn't mean it's bad," Ocasek says.

Besides, while Goff and the majority on the state board favor dropping the Carnegie unit requirement, Sen. Gene Watts, R-Galloway, is leading a legislative effort to increase the number of units required to gain a diploma from 18 to 20. Watts wants to add two units in science and one each in math, English and social studies. He would cut the number of required electives from nine to six

Goff says he will seek a compromise with Watts, but Ocasek wonders show you can "compromise on something that's irrevocable." Be that as it may, Callendar vows he and his colleagues on the House Education Committee - particularly Reps Mike Wise, R-Mayfield Village, and James D. Jordan R-West Liberty - will not be stampeded on the new standards. Callender says the standards move in the direction of more state control. He also opposes subjective material that might be part of a family values curriculum. "How do you test for values?" he asks.

Byrne, a Republican, is more caustic in his assessment of the proposed standards than Ocasek. He says they are part of the "march toward collectivism."

There is no point in raising standards if all it means is that more students will fail, Byrne says, the proposed standards contain "too many vague attitudes" and not enough "hard science," he says.

Ocasek echoes Callendar's concerns about the state dictating to local districts. "I don't like to face my constituents who say the state is taking over." He says.


-------

Glen Gilbert is managing editor of The News-Herald

Go Home