Why The ACT?

As many of our readers know, ROPE has not been supportive of state-sponsored ACT use. We believe ACT is a private-market test (no matter how the company would like to sell it) and parents and students should determine when to take it - even if they should take it at all.

Recently, State Superintendent Hofmeister made it possible for all Oklahoma 11th graders to take the ACT should they choose to do so (it is a voluntary action via school district). This was after the state legislature chose not to act on an end of year ACT exam last session.

This has left the question of "Why the ACT?" Why is it SO important to have Oklahoma students take the ACT? We're told it's because, as Mrs. Hofmeister has said numerous times, "Oklahoma is an ACT state", meaning (we infer) that the majority of students take the ACT and the majority of Colleges/Universities here in Oklahoma consider the results of the ACT for admissions.

Unfortunately, it's rarely noted that both OU and OSU start with grade point average and class position as their first necessity for admissions - NOT the ACT. Both OU and OSU take SAT as well as ACT. So if that's not what makes us an "ACT state", what does? Is it the fact that the ACT is sold most often to parents/students here in Oklahoma? What difference is that other than the result of a good marketing strategy?

Recently, the National PTA placed an article on its website called "Ten "Must Know" Facts About Educational Testing". Here, the PTA covers common misconceptions and provides information on various different types of testing. Number 7 was interesting, so I have pasted it below. Please remember, as you read this, that the Oklahoma PTA has been one of the staunch supporters of the ACT.

List of organizations in Oklahoma supporting the use of taxpayer funded ACT

Fact 7:Even though only about 25 percent of a student's success in college is related to the student's score on aptitude tests such as the ACT and SAT, parents should (1) still help their children prepare for those tests, but (2) avoid conveying a negative impression to a child whose test scores are not particularly high. The research evidence on this point is quite conclusive.
There are many factors far more influential than aptitude-test scores in predicting a student's college performance. A student's motivation, study habits, and interpersonal skills play powerful roles in shaping collegiate success. Parents should not think that a child who doesn't earn super scores on a college admissions test is destined for failure—in college or beyond. Numerous students who earn lofty scores on the SAT or ACT take an academic tumble when they get into college. There are many important kinds of intelligence, and the "academic" intelligence measured by most standardized aptitude tests is only one.
Action Implication:
First, if your child doesn't score well on the ACT or SAT, do not conclude that your child is "not bright." And definitely do not convey any such negative impression to your child. Second, because ACT and SAT scores do, in fact, play a significant part in current college admissions decisions, be sure to provide your child with at least some preparation for those tests

Goodness. The national PTA essentially says here that really, the kids who do best on the ACT are the ones that have test prep. Hmmmm. Now that we're providing all 11th graders with the ACT, the state will most certainly need to hire another private non-profit like Kaplan Test Prep or the scores won't be as good as they could be. Not only that, but even if the students don't do well on the test, poor results don't really mean anything in the context of a student's preparation for the world. Even retiring ACT president, John Erikson says,

"...but even if you think your test results don't reflect your grades and courses, your classroom achievements and dedication will overcome a poor test showing."

So why do we need to pay kids to take this test again?

Could it be then, that the reason why ACT is so heavily lobbying for Oklahoma to make ACT a 'state' test - and why the education establishment is kowtowing to this sales job - is because of the fact that everyone involved here will get a big fat chunk of data from every kid who takes the test? Yes, I think so. Data is power. As Arne Duncan so famously said, "Data drives decisions", and of course, the Oklahoma education establishment bought this idea hook, line and sinker. Yes, if we make ACT a 'state' test, the state will get a big fat package of student data and so will ACT.

ACT has its own entire division for data collection. Test takers have a supplemental data form they can fill out at the beginning of the test. ACT analyses this information in order to assist student placement in the best choices for them following graduation (college, trade school, etc.). They also have an entire division devoted to collecting data based upon test responses which then allows them to make 'predictions' about the body of test takers and their preparedness in each of the tested subjects. They also use this data to 'verify' assumptions about the validity of the test.

What in the world could state and federal governments do with these data but go on to create yet more - expensive and invasive - changes to the public education system, including more testing? In other words, education policy arises from data collected from tests that are then used to define education policy! It's a self-inflicted wound - a closed loop system.

Just recently, ACT released the data collected from students who took the ACT last year in their annual report. Though the Common Core panacea was supposed to have been instituted in states in 2010, the headline of the entire multi-page annual report would have to be,

"...based on data from a record 1.9 million ACT-tested students - nearly 60% of the 2015 US graduating class - shows very little change in overall college readiness over the past several years."

Interestingly, the SAT has very similar results to report,

Source: College Board, Created by infogr.am for EdWeek

Apparently, all the new federally subsidized and 'suggested' education fads aren't working. What else could these results underscore other than the COMPLETE AND TOTAL FAILURE OF TODAY'S EDUCATION REFORM POLICIES? Apparently, the constant testing pummeling students today in the name of education accountability isn't helping anyone but the bottom line of the testing companies. It's SURELY and OBVIOUSLY not helping the kids. If parents want students to take college readiness tests, parents should either pay for them out of their own pockets, or apply to ACT for a grant to do so. States should not be using hard-earned tax dollars to pay for a test that - at best gives them an idea of what they do and don't know - they should be using those tax dollars to support great teachers and TRADITIONAL educational methods that have been shown to work for decades.

Oklahoma State Department of Education Provides Grant For 11th Graders To Take Free ACT

Last night, state Superintendent of Public Instruction, Joy Hofmeister telephoned me. She was calling out of courtesy for ROPE's  position against the use of ACT as an end of instruction (EOI) exam during the last legislative session to inform me that the Department of Education would supply grant funds for state publicly-schooled 11th graders to take the ACT. 

Because last year's legislature was uncomfortable enough with the use of the ACT as an EOI to prevent passage of a bill to mandate its use, Mrs. Hofmeister wanted to assure me she was not attempting an end-around the legislature. This program was, instead, she explained, the result of numerous phone calls with administrators who - without the ability to continue their use of ACT's Explore and Plan tests - needed another way to judge student trajectory toward college preparedness. In addition Mrs. Hofmeister asserted that, as in California, less than 50% of Oklahoma students take the ACT, often because they can't afford it and/or lack a parent/guardian to get them to the testing site. Students who can't take the test don't know if they're college-ready material. Indications are that simply knowing they could meet enrollment standards might make students more willing to take the leap toward higher learning.**

Mrs. Hofmeister then asked my thoughts. 

Frankly, it was hard to articulate all our concerns that spontaneously, but I was grateful to have been asked. I mentioned that Explore and Plan had different 'jobs' than the ACT - more career planning - while ACT was a test of college readiness. There is also the ever-expanding concern of college costs versus that of Career Tech. Studies indicate many students entering the workforce out of college take lower paying jobs with greater debt than those students who become certified in a trade. Why aren't we using the money to pay for the ACT for 'shop' classes or concurrent enrollment or work-study programs? Why a test to indicate college readiness?

Our conversation continued for many minutes to be sure, but it wasn't until I read the actual press release from the OSDE today that several more things came to mind:

1. Early this year, Mrs. Hofmeister insisted that the OSDE not only needed more money, but could not suffer any further cuts or teacher job loss would ensue, increasing our already dire teacher shortage. Why wasn't the $1.5 million budgeted for assessments now being used to fund the ACT put back into the already-tight budget? Why use it to pay schools to give ACT to all 11th graders - especially when some can already afford it and those that can't can apply to the ACT for a fee waiver? Doesn't that solve the problem?
2. The Explore and Plan tests did not function as the ACT. The Explore was given to students in 8th or 9th grade. It helped students "learn more about careers, clarify your goals and begin to plan your future..." Plan was given in 10th grade as a way to determine whether or not a student's coursework was on track to meet their goals. These tests have both been scrapped in favor of the Common Core aligned Aspire. Certainly, the Aspire test would have been met with some level of resistance from a number of quarters (including ours). So the ACT was next in line? How does the ACT - a test of college readiness - even sort of compare to the job done by the Explore and Plan? I honestly can't see this argument even a little.
3. Why do we keep pushing college? Why is everything 'college-ready'? Study after study indicates that college graduates are graduating college with more debt and less ability to find a stable job - let alone one in their field. Though our state was 46th in the nation in student debt in 2013, our students had an average college debt of $22,174 over 53% of all college graduates from Oklahoma. That's a miserable statistic. (Tulsa University was the worst at 33K). While the "Workforce of the Future" does include more college graduates, it's important to note that those are only projected as 33% of the job market by 2018. That leaves 67% of the job market in the hands of the trades and skilled workers. Why are we never told this? Again, why do we keep pushing college?
4. ACT has its own set of standards (the ACT College and Career Readiness Standards). Okay, that's fine, but isn't Oklahoma in the middle of a process to produce our own set of standards? Mission creep is a basic tenet of government anymore. Once this becomes a "free 11th grade test" how short is the step to "mandated 12th grade test"? 
5. Most college-bound seniors weren't proficient in basic skills in 2011. In fact, last year, only 22% of Oklahoma students taking the ACT met all four benchmarks of basic skills (English, Math, Science and Reading). ONLY 22%? Why in the world are we not putting the $1.5 million to work remediating students in basic skills now instead instead testing a readiness for college we already know MOST don't have? In fact, this has been the trend for the last four years, you'd think we might have a clue about what's causing high college remediation rates and be solving the issue not trolling the water for more data to show our poor college preparedness.

In closing, it is frustrating that apparently Mrs. Hofmeister - while soliciting comments from others - is continuing to listen to the crowd originally for Common Core, which is the same crowd that continues to push ACT testing. Please look at the OSDE's press release about the ACT today and note those providing comment; the PTA, Senator John Ford, General Lee Baxter (plaintiff on the lawsuit to stop the Common Core repeal), John Erickson of ACT and CCOSA. Though I want to believe the best, it's hard to do so when these associations continue to be so influential. After all, haven't we all been told at least some time in our lives that we are known by our associations?


**During the writing of this blog, I went out to the State Department of Ed website to see if I could find graduation totals in order to do a bit of fact-checking, however, I was unable to find a total other than for each school/district and without an hour to do the addition, I moved on. ACT does have their State Profile Report for 2014 online and, while it doesn't provide a percentage of Oklahoma students who took the ACT in 2014, there are other stats reported there of interest.

ACT A Wolf In Sheep's Clothing?

Though ROPE wants to see an end to the practice of EOI's altogether, unfortunately (and as usual it appears, sadly) ROPE does NOT agree with the Oklahoma Public School Education Establishment (aka #OKlaEd). Recently, Jason James, a member of the #OKlaEd community posted a blog singing the praises of the ACT - for a second time.

I'm not going to cover all the different reasons why we disagree - five are written on the meme and we've written/published four separate blogs detailing our reasoning and outlining the research undergirding those reasons (1. 2. 3. 4) - so there's simply no point to bang our shoe.

Beyond our studied, researched reasons, however, lies another, less quantifiable concern about ACT.

Most everyone who reads this blog or knows anything about ROPE has read about the organizations that attempted to override the will of the taxpaying public and cement Common Core State Standards here in Oklahoma last year. Of those, we've written exclusively (and often) about Stand For Children, the Chamber of Commerce (national, state and city), and CCOSA to name a few (to find these, just search the blog using those key words).  Just recently, these groups - and other pro-CC organizations - have joined together as a coalition (as they did against CC) to push for the adoption of the ACT.

This flyer was sent out to both legislators and individuals very recently. For the most part, the groups listed on the flyer pushed to keep Common Core in Oklahoma law. The groups listed are PRIVATE organizations sustained by PRIVATE donations and dues that lobby for public policy in some capacity, utilizing these resources.  

Here's the rub; though these groups may use their collective voice and money to lobby the legislature, our government is "By the PEOPLE, of the PEOPLE, for the PEOPLE". I fact, if our elected officials were to respond solely to the 'collective voice', we'd not be a Representative Republic, we'd be a socialist republic instead. This is absolutely true, yet I've heard the disdain echoed in the voices of coalition members following last year's Common Core defeat as they wondered aloud why the legislature 'listened' to 'the people' instead of their 'group/s'.

If I sound frustrated here, it's because I am. So often, organizations and groups with considerably more money than individual tax paying citizens for whom the government is to work, drive public policy for that reason alone. This is maddening because especially in public education today, these groups don't represent PARENTS, STUDENTS or TAXPAYERS, but 'systems' designed to perpetuate themselves at all cost to taxpayers and parents whether it works for them or not. Here's the crazy thing - these groups aren't independent entities at all. Half the groups represented on this flyer are made up of members from the other groups! In fact, there's so much political incest among these groups that their gene pool is more like a puddle. Get this:

• Oklahoma School Boards Association (OSSBA); membership consists of state school board members and superintendents
• Cooperative Council of Oklahoma School Administrators (CCOSA); comprised of 5 separate associations (Oklahoma Association of School Administrators, Oklahoma Association of Secondary School Principals, Oklahoma Association of Elementary School Principals, Oklahoma Middle Level Educators Association, Oklahoma Directors of Special Services), supported by Renaissance Learning, Scholastic and CTB/McGraw Hill, to name a few. Ryan Owens is listed as the Executive Director.
• United Suburban Schools Association (USSA), run by superintendents for independent school districts with more than 3000 students. (Shawn Hime listed as legislative Assistant - Ryan Owens listed as Executive Director) Supported in part by Renaissance Learning.
• Oklahoma Business and Education Coalition (OBEC); Executive Board includes Kaiser, all three Chambers, and Inasmuch
• Oklahoma PTA; a blog I wrote about PTA
• Oklahoma Education Association (OEA); has their own coalition comprised of most of the members listed on the flyer
• Stand For Children; Government Affairs Director Gwendolyn Caldwell has worked for the Oklahoma State Chamber previously, Great numbers of issues have surfaced with stand from misrepresenting signatures on a petition to funneling dark money into political campaigns. In fact, the Oklahoma GOP voted for a resolution condemning Stand for Children due to their poor business practices.

• Oklahoma Educated Workforce Initiative; State Chamber and Oklahoma Works Initiative (this 'initiative' is dark as to supporters - it does say the Department of Labor funds their site)
• Oklahoma Central PLAC; private membership nonpartisan organization
• Oklahoma Public School Resource Center; Funded by George Kaiser (of EduCare and ObamaCare fame), Inasmuch Foundation, Walton Foundation and Schusterman Foundation
• Organization of Rural Elementary Schools; members are all rural elementary schools in the state
• Organization of Rural Oklahoma Schools; membership contains a group of 400 or so rural Oklahoma schools
• State Chamber of Oklahoma; created the Oklahoma Educated Workforce initiative
• Greater Oklahoma City Chamber; formed the ExpectMore coalition to push Common Core - included OBEC, Stand, Schusterman, PTA
• Tulsa Regional Chamber

Shocking really, when you put it all out there for everyone to see. These organizations are formed in order to advance public policy, period - to make laws that benefit their organizations. In order to advance public policy, they form coalitions with one another to make themselves look bigger in number than they are. This technique works well initially because when you look at them individually, it looks as though there are a lot of different entities. Only when you research them do you find out they're the same people/organizations creating new coalitions under different names, the magic dissipates.

So why do we consider it important to really study those organizations supporting ACT? Because when you look below the surface, you find them to be essentially the same groups that pushed Common Core; groups that organize together in order to influence public policy in a way that benefits them - not necessarily the public. Public education is NOT for the perpetuation of jobs, it's for educating children in a way that will allow them to grow and develop and become mature adults that can excel in any vocation they choose - not jobs picked for them by the Labor Department or businesses looking to fill vacancies. 

ACT is not the panacea described by the OKlaEd community. Putting anything into law without any real study as to consequences (like Common Core), is a set up for failure. Let's wait for Oklahoma's new educational standards to be developed before we move on. It only makes sense.

Twitter Rally For HB1622 And End Of EOI Testing!

This legislative session in Oklahoma, there have been numerous bills to reduce testing. We've written about a number of them. Now, as session draws to a close for this year, all the testing bills that have been passed by the House and Senate committees are being funneled to the floor for votes by the full Senate.

Several bills (707, 784) contain language that points directly to ACT. We have written extensively about why ACT is not an option for Oklahoma currently - mainly because ACT has their own set of standards by which students will be tested, while Oklahoma has barely begun the process of writing our own standards as dictated by last year's Common Core repeal bill (HB3399).  ROPE supports the passage of HB1622 by Representative David Derby, which stops EOI testing, while creating a process by which Oklahoma can design one end of year exam using our own Oklahoma standards. HB1622 passed the House UNANIMOUSLY and is thus supported by an overwhelming majority of Oklahoma State Representatives. There really is no reason not to use this bill over the others still circulating.

As all the testing bills move to the floor of the Senate THIS WEEK, we are asking you to help us campaign for the passage of HB1622.

FIRST: Right click on one or all of the memes in this blog, then save it to your computer.

NEXT: If you are on Facebook, replace your FB image with one of these memes.

NEXT: If you are on Twitter, Tweet out the memes to your Senator (and others if you wish) using the list below (there are House members included there too, so just pick out your Senator). This list may not be comprehensive, so once you have attached your photo to your Tweet, try typing in the name of your Senator (for example, I'd type in Sen, Ron, Sharp, and if I didn't find anything, I'd use variations of that name - Senator Ron Sharp - until I found the right Twitter handle).

NEXT: Use the hashtag, #YESONHB1622 so we can keep count of the number of Tweets sent.

NEXT: Tweet these to your friends to re-Tweet as well.

Feel free to CALL your Senator as well. You can find their numbers here.

Thanks for your help!

@AnthonySykes

@brecheen4senate

@BrianRenegar

@ClaudiaHD45

@ConnieJ4OK

@davidbrumbaugh

@DavidPerrymanOK

@ecannaday

@FieldsForSenate

@jamesmleewright

@jasonnelsonok

@jdunnington

@jonechols

@JordanOKHouse

@jwmurphey

@Kannady4OK91Rep

@KayFloydOK

@KenWalker4house

@kimdavid

@kimdavid2010

@kyledloveless

@leslieosborn1

@lewismooreok

@MarkDistrict30

@MarkMcBrideHD53

@MazzeiMike

@MontgomeryOK62

@NathanDahm

@Newberry37

@OKHouseofReps

@okrepstrohm

@oksde

@oksenategop

@patownbey

@RandyJGrau

@RepAPittman

@RepCOrtega

@RepEmilyVirgin

@RepHickman

@RepJoshCockroft

@RepMarkMcBride

@RepMikeShelton

@RepScottBiggs

@RepScottInman

@RepTomNewell

@RickBrinkley

@SallyKern

@SE_Pres_Burrage

@Sen_GregTreat

@sen_roger

@Senatorcjohnson

@senatorcrain

@SenatorRandyBas

@SenatorRobS

@SenatorSimpson

@SenatorSparks

@SenCoreyBrooks

@Seneca_Scott

@SenStanislawski

@smalley101

@SoonerRep

@SpkrHickmanOK

@stephaniebice

@ToddThomsen

@VoteEliseHall

@Yen4Senate

The Oklahoma State Chamber of Commerce and SB707: Are They Misinformed, Or Perpetuating A Falsehood?

Recently, I was sent an email from the State Chamber of Commerce that contained the following several paragraphs:

If you want a test that matters, it matters what you test. Specifically, if you want to make sure that Oklahoma high school students are ready for a career or college when they graduate, use a test that colleges know, understand and look at as part of their entry requirements. That was the point behind

SB 707 (Ford/Denney) which passed in the Senate, but was amended this week in a House committee. The original version of the bill would have allowed the State Department of Education to reduce the number of end of instruction tests and to make those tests relevant. But it was amended to prevent the state from using something like the ACT which a majority of students already take.

Our agenda calls for making sure testing is aligned with college and career readiness. What other reason is there to have end of instruction tests? If your test gives no indication that a student is prepared for life after high school then it is a waste of time and money. The original version of SB 707 keeps control of standards with the state as lawmakers intended with HB 3399 passed last year. The original version of SB 707 had wide support in the education community. It's important for students, parents and the business community that the original language be restored.The language to which the email's author is referring is what we've explained numerous times will disconnect Oklahoma standards from Oklahoma tests so that what is taught does not have to be tested.

Let's parse the State Chamber's argument here:

1. First of all, the State Chamber argues that Oklahoma should be using "a test that colleges know, understand and look at as part of their entry requirements". This language is euphemistic for ACT. Yes, some colleges use the ACT (or SAT, or a combination of both SAT/ACT) to decide admissions, but they also use grade point average to a larger degree than either test as it is a better predictor of college success than the ACT (OU and OSU say as much on their freshman admission requirements page). If the Chamber's argument is college success, then the ACT is just a portion of what is expected for college readiness so why go to battle over this issue?
2. The Chamber argues here that SB707 was amended to prevent the state from using ACT by putting back in the words "corresponding student assessments" after the words, "The subject matter standards and". (Don't forget, SB707 changed the Common Core repeal bill from last year (HB3399) to unhook the standards from the tests by removing "corresponding student assessments"). The Chamber felt that 'unhooking' the tests from the standards was necessary to allow the state to use the ACT. Apparently, they didn't do their homework. They've already made this argument about a different part of HB3399 last year while fighting the repeal and that was proven to be a false assertion. This year, I understand several legislators consulted Capitol legal staff for their 'read' of the testing language and both the Senate and House legal staff concluded that the original language from HB3399 does NOT prevent the state from using the ACT. Did the Chamber do any research on this issue before they began to support this bill? What about the original senate author? It would appear not.
3. The State Chamber maintains in this email that their agenda calls for creating tests that are aligned with college and career readiness. Didn't we just go through the process of proving Oklahoma's educational standards as college ready? Yes. It was determined - in order for the state to get back its coveted NCLB waiver, that Oklahoma's previous-to-the-Common-Core-standards - PASS - met the also-coveted College and Career Ready label. PASS has been certified College and Career Ready, therefore any tests created from PASS would hold students to "College and Career Ready" knowledge. The ACT then, is a red herring and there is no reason to change SB707.
4. As though they're not informed enough to understand the real argument here, the State Chamber goes on to indicate that SB707 "keeps control of the standards with state lawmakers as intended with HB3399". Not to be rude, but so what? The Oklahoma Constitution holds the veracity of this statement - not HB3399. We found that out after the State Board of Education sued the state over HB3399 and the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that lawmakers have the final say on Oklahoma educational standards. This is another red herring offered up by the Chamber to solicit support from parents by misleading them. I find that distasteful because it's another fallicy - appeal to emotion.
5. They end their email with yet another form of fallacious reasoning by pleading that this bill had 'widespread community support'. It certainly has no support in the community of grassroots education activists who worked for years to try and rid the state of the Common Core State Standards. These people are still engaged and active and understand that their work is in jeopardy if HB3399 is allowed to be changed to unhook standards from tests. But then, according to their constant pushback against our efforts, it would seem they don't care about our informed opinions.

In the end, it is important to really read information provided by ANY of the organizations who pushed back against the repeal of the Common Core to discern their agenda and the voracity of their statements. This particular email from the Oklahoma Chamber is full of fallacious reasoning and incorrect statements. Please research and determine this to be true and examine with a critical eye ANY information regarding your child's education. Only parents have their children's best interest at heart and those doesn't follow a legislative agenda.

Legislative Update As Bills Cross Between House and Senate

I'm sad to say, but, as hard as we tried to stay on top of the education bills this year, we just couldn't do it!  There are ALWAYS too many of them and this year wasn't an exception.  Here is the list of just House Education bills for this year in case you want to peruse them and check me up on my definition of too many!  So please forgive our consistent updates.

At any rate, if you'll remember, we started the 2015 legislative session with the goals of:

1. Trying to stop the grading of teachers via surveys and high stakes testing better known as TLE. 
2. Upgrading school choice in Oklahoma to include ALL those who would like to participate. We believe the way to do this is through the establishment of Education Savings Accounts.
3. Continuing to fight for privacy protection for students from data collection.

1.  Our concern with TLE (beyond the idea that it adds another layer to what teachers are already mandated to do), is that TLE measures were built to test Common Core standards. So far, it appears that the quantitative portion of TLE will be put on hold for at least two years and the qualitative portion will be changed slightly as well.

2.  Education Savings Accounts were represented this session in the form of a bill by Representative Jason Nelson (HB2003) and another by Senator Clark Jolley (SB609).  HB2003 was heard in the Common Education Committee where it received a 9 to 9 vote and was killed.  SB609 was pulled from consideration this session before it reached the floor for a vote by the author, due to pressure to kill the bill in the Senate.  I don't want to get into a discussion about this issue, but I will say that it was very disappointing to see such emotional, untrue and mean/rude commentaries by many in the education establishment.  Though there are many issues to work through, it saddens me to hear people who say they care about the education of children, present such illogical arguments to turn the tide of public opinion.

3.  This year, HB1989 was slightly changed (HB2049) in order to create district-level data protection for students.  The bill has passed the House and has crossed to the Senate.

MOVING FORWARD
Unfortunately, we've had a fight on our hands we didn't expect - that of a repeal (in essence) of HB3399 (the bill to kill Common Core in Oklahoma) by way of SB707, a bill by Senator John Ford.  We've written numerous blogs about this issue so I won't go into detail here, but I will say that the bill is DELIBERATELY being messaged as a bill ONLY to stop End Of Instruction (EOI) exams by such organizations as Stand For Children, the Oklahoma State Chamber, COSSA, the OSSBA, individual school administrators and others.  The only reason I can think this might happen is because there is specific intent to change the wording in HB3399 to untie the tests from the standards in order to bring in an off-the-shelf test - namely ACT - to serve as a single EOI.  Don't forget, these are the same organizations that worked against us so vehemently to keep Common Core and that alone should present a RED FLAG.  It's also interesting here to note that another of Senator Ford's bills - SB708 did the same thing proponents of ditching EOI's wanted, yet it got zero discussion - another RED FLAG.

We've said it before and we'll say it again, we are FINE with removing the EOI's - it wasn't long ago that a high school student had only to complete his course of instruction with C's and above to graduate high school - PERIOD.  The problem comes in when we try to test other than Oklahoma standards - especially when we haven't even gotten them written yet - though we do now have a process to develop these approved by the State Board on Friday (March 12th) and that is very good news.

In fact, in an interesting twist, previous Common Core proponent, Andrew Spiropoulus actually penned an op-ed for the Journal Record pointing the finger at the ACT as a way to bring back Common Core, so if we're wearing tin foil hats over this one, well, you get the picture.

Enter HB1622.  This bill by Representative David Derby, would phase out EOI testing over time, (a very important step simply because education policy of late consists of rushing headlong into situations that later have to be rectified by passing more laws)  substituting them with ONE graduation test that can be both criterion- and norm-referenced as well as include our own Oklahoma standards.  This is a much better plan that doesn't involve gutting the Common Core repeal from last year.

Please stay tuned as we continue to move forward through the legislative process.  We may have to bring out those green shirts again if we can't seem to be heard on this very important issue - dust them off and be ready.  In the meantime we'll let you know something as soon as we know it.

UPDATE: 3/16/15 SB707 was passed by the Common Education Committee 11/4 with an amendment provided by Jason Nelson that puts back INTO the bill the phrase that was taken out. Though there is no record of the amendment at the time of this posting, it should be available by tomorrow morning.

"Common" Sense Questions About EOI's and ACT

One day while visiting with a legislator, I heard words so true I'll ultimately carry them with me for the rest of my life. As I sat talking to this man about a particular bill, he uttered the sentence,

"Jenni, we make laws up here (the Capitol), that's what we do." 

It was then I understood with crystal clarity why I felt as though I was constantly fighting one bill or another every year. It was then I discovered why I sit uneasily on the edge of my chair from February through May. Legislators see it as their job to make laws. 

Okay, we do call them law makers, but really, is that their job? Is their job to MAKE LAWS or to PROTECT MY LIBERTY? According to the Constitution, my liberty is of the utmost importance, yet therein lies the conundrum. If we elect people to represent us in our government, call them law makers and then send them to the Capitol with a certain number of bills they may write every year, how will individual liberty NOT be subverted in at least some way? It's a shoe-in it will. (So far this year we've had a bill to fine me for wearing a hoodie and a bill to fine me for texting while driving though we already have a law on the books for distracted driving - I rest my case.)

Let's look at the latest infringement of liberty in the education category - SB707 - a bill in which key segments of last year's Common Core repeal bill will be, well, repealed.

I've written about this bill a number of different times and so have many many others. Good grief, at this point, just Google the bill number and Oklahoma together in a sentence and you'll get plenty to read.

This morning, I saw the OKEducationTruths blog on why Oklahoma should use ACT instead of our current End of Instruction (EOI) exams. In the blog was this picture the author had taken at a High Stakes Testing Summit in which people from all over the state had come to discuss the issue.

It's a bit hard to read all of the concerns written on this page, but here are a few:

1. Technology
2. If you don't test it it doesn't count
3. Misuse of Results
4. Inaccurately Defines Success
5. Results Don't Return Soon Enough
6. Psychological Impact to Students and IEP students

Let me address just these few - comments are number-matched:

1. Technology - though Oklahoma schools have had to use E-Rate grants to upgrade their internet broadband in order to be ready to provide online exams, broadband isn't the only issue involved with online testing. Pearson will be supplying the technology platform for ACT. Pearson, unfortunately, has a terrible record of testing problems - including here in Oklahoma.
2. The ACT is aligned to the Common Core. Implementing ACT BEFORE Oklahoma creates its own standards (as dictated by the Common Core repeal bill HB3399), will usher in a real possibility where Common Core comes back into the state as teachers begin to teach to the mandated, Common Core aligned ACT.
3. Results of the ACT is college readiness. Will mandating this test be taken by every Oklahoma high school junior tell us anything other than that they are 'college ready'? 
4. The ACT is a test that doesn't tell what a student has learned directly in the classroom, it uses its own standards to generate a general test for college 'readiness'. If we are to use ACT as a high school exit exam when not ALL students are prepared to attend college, though the test has never been validated for that use, what results are we expecting? High school transcripts have long been shown to be a better predictor of college success than the ACT.
5. Online testing in Oklahoma has proved technologically challenging and has produced late or no test results. Paper and pencil tests have not experienced these issues.
6. ACT does have a provision for testing IEP students. Just recently, we were notified of a parent in another state who also mandates the use of ACT as a junior, whose child had their ENTIRE IEP file uploaded to ACT in order to receive modifications. If that isn't a breach of privacy, I'm not sure there's a definition. That's quite an impact for not only that student, but the family as well. Then, of course, there's the stress that comes with taking a test that was once voluntary, but now has become a high stakes test....

In closing, the OkEducationTruths blog spawned a whole list of questions I would love to see answered. In fact, it's my hope Common Sense overrides the necessity to 'make law' up at the state Capitol on a regular basis, but certainly on this issue. Maybe it would help - instead of acting - to answer these questions first...GO!

1. Why should we circumvent the bidding process and put a specific test in law?
2. Why should we name any specific test in law, tying ourselves down to a situation that might possibly have to be rectified with MORE legislation (laws)? Did Common Core teach no one a lesson here about putting specific programs in law before we knew what they would do?
3. Simply moving from 7 EOISs(only 4 are tested, but 7 have to be prepared) to 1 EOI will save great heaps of money, so to say using ACT is THE financial panacea for testing costs is simply a red herring, isn't it?
4. Why is using the ACT the best way to go? Isn't grade point average the better predictor of college success?  If so, can't ANY comprehensive test be used as an EOI?
5. Why commit to using an online test administered by Pearson when Oklahoma has a terrible track record with that business?
6. How can administrators who ordinarily rage against state mandates be so willing to get behind the creation of yet another mandate?

Does SB707 UNDO HB3399 - The Repeal of Common Core State Standards in Oklahoma?

As readers know, ROPE is not in favor of mandating the use of ACT in law. 

We believe that choosing an exit exam to be mandated for all Oklahoma students is getting the CART BEFORE THE HORSE. Oklahoma has not even created our own standards as specified in HB3399, last year's Common Core Repeal Bill, why would Oklahoma legislators and the State Board of Education decide on an exit exam before Oklahoma's new standards have even been written? 

If HB3399 is to be changed (SB707), how can that be done without deliberately SUBVERTING THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE? Many legislators ran for office in 2014 on their vote to repeal Common Core. Once these legislators are in office, can they simply renege on that vote in order to adopt a specific out-of-state test because it's popular? 

It appears that two very important questions need to be answered before Oklahoma law makers move forward with mandating ANY end of year test. 

1. WHY IS IT NECESSARY TO REMOVE LANGUAGE FROM LAST YEAR'S Common Core repeal bill HB3399? Oklahoman's voted to repeal Common Core, why should anyone seek to change the language in that bill and unhook tests from standards? Wasn't the idea to have Oklahoma tests that matched Oklahoma standards? That's what the public said they wanted.
2. Is it good public policy to NAME A SPECIFIC VENDOR in LAW when multiple vendors can meet each Oklahoma's need for an end of year exam? Isn't this why we have a competitive bidding process? If not, then I'm going out to start my own construction company and lobby to have it placed IN LAW as the only construction company that can be used on any job in Oklahoma. Doesn't make much sense when you look at it that way, does it?

ACT is a test with a long history and all students who want to take the ACT should take the ACT. It should not be MANDATED as an end of year exam. Why? Let's do some pro/con, tit/tat, to figure out exactly why, but first, let's get a handle on some basics.

What does HB3399 say about testing in Oklahoma?

Section 11-103.6a B1: The subject matter standards and corresponding student assessments for English Language Arts and Mathematics shall be solely approved and controlled by the state through the State Board of Education.

Section 11-103.6a C1: On or before the 2017-18 school year, the State Board of Education, in consultation with the State Regents for Higher Education, the State Board of Career and Technology Education and the Oklahoma Department of Commerce, shall direct the process of the development of annual high-quality statewide student assessments for English Language Arts and Mathematics as provided for in Section 1210.508 of this title that align with the college- and career-ready subject matter standards developed pursuant to subsection B of this section.

Section 11-103.6a D1: The State Board of Education shall not enter into any agreement, memorandum of understanding or contract with any federal agency or private entity which in any way cedes or limits state discretion or control over the process of development, adoption or revision of subject matter standards and corresponding student assessments in the public school system, including, but not limited to, agreements, memoranda of understanding and contracts in exchange for funding for public schools and programs.

Section 11-103.6a D3E: The content of all subject matter standards and corresponding student assessments shall be solely approved and controlled by the state through the State Board of Education. The State Board of Education shall maintain independence of all subject matter standards referenced in Section 11-103.6 of this title and corresponding statewide student assessments and shall not relinquish authority over Oklahoma subject matter standards and corresponding statewide student assessments. 

Section 1210.508 A. 1. The State Board of Education shall develop and administer a series of criterion-referenced tests designed to indicate whether the state academic content subject matter standards, as defined by the State Board of Education in the Priority Academic Student Skills Curriculum, which Oklahoma public school students are expected to have attained have been achieved. (**See below for definitions of Criterion Referenced and Norm Referenced tests)

Does this language say that no other tests can be used in Oklahoma other than the ones created to match our standards? NO. It simply says that STATEWIDE exams must correspond to our state standards. That is not the ACT or the AP, or any other national exam - all of which are VOLUNTARY.

What does Mary Fallin's Executive Order 2013-40 say about testing in Oklahoma?

2.  The State of Oklahoma will be exclusively responsible for deciding the assessment

methodology to be used to measure student performance.

6.  All assessments will be developed with input by Oklahomans. Further, final adoption of any assessment is the sole responsibility and obligation of Oklahomans, with input from Oklahoma educators, higher education and career technology centers, parents, and the Oklahoma business community.

ACT

When comparing ACT to the above, ACT simply doesn't fit current Oklahoma law as use for a mandated exit test. 

What else about the ACT?

• ACT is a NRT, not a CRT and it can't become one, but other tests on the market can.
• ACT is not as good a predictor of college readiness as high school grades. For some time it has been known that high school grades are a better predictor of college success than the ACT or SAT (1), but a RECENT study (2) echoes this knowledge.
• ACT will NOT raise our ACT scores if we give it to 100% of our kids. In fact, the Southern Regional Education Board has found that once North Carolina began giving ALL their high school juniors the ACT, they went from an average score of 21.9 to 18.7. (3)  How this doesn't make simple common sense I'm unclear. If you have kids forced to take a test they don't want to take, or are not ready to take, these scores are going to DROP the average of those who would have taken it of their own volition.
• ACT is NOT a necessity for college admission. As many as 800 institutions - including University of Central Oklahoma - (4) that traditionally relied on the ACT/SAT for admission, are now utilizing student transcripts to make these decisions. (5) In fact, according to a previous study by FairTest, colleges that do not base admissions on ACT/SAT NRT's (6) "...are widely pleased with the results. Regardless of size or selectivity, these institutions have seen substantial benefits, including increased student diversity, more and better-prepared applicants, and positive reactions from alumni/ae, students, guidance counselors and the public." 
• ACT has never been validated for use as a high school exit exam. Bob Schaeffer of Fair Test says, "The use of the ACT as an exit exam would be bad policy. The test has never been validated for that purpose. (7) Such use violates the Standards for Educational and Psychological Measurement, the testing profession's own guidelines". 
• ACT may NOT be able to provide testing results in a timely fashion. Online tests for ACT are provided by Pearson (8). FairTest has an impressive log of Pearson testing failures (9) and Diane Ravich has published information on Pearson failures in Oklahoma specifically (10). How can anyone say that ACT's results are expected in a timely fashion when past experience does not at all support this notion?
• ACT is not a fair test for minorities or the poor. ACT regularly underestimates the abilities of females (11) and the ACT also does a poor job of predicting college performance for students of color. A common sense approach would assume that advantaged families will continue to pay for ACT test prep even when state mandated, while less advantaged students who don't have that opportunity and/or simply don't care about the test may not even try to answer correctly.
• ACT is aligned to Common Core. ACT Aspire is fully aligned to the Common Core (12) and The ACT is aligned in part simply because ACT helped to create the Common Core framework. (13) Why would we want a test that does not reflect STATE standards, but those that the public voted to be rid of just one year ago? 
• ACT as an exit exam will mean nothing if no cut score is provided. What cut score will be used? Why? Using ACT's results from 2013 (14) Dr. John Thompson argues (15) that 28% of students would fail and ACT with a cutoff score of 16. If there is no cutoff score for an ACT exit exam than anyone who took the test would pass. How is there any accountability in that process? Since Oklahoma's standards would not be measured with an ACT, utilizing ACT with no cut score would have no meaning.
• ACT has been touted as be cheaper than EOI's, but where is the bidding process that would provide transparency and finality to this assertion? How can one vendor be placed in law as responsible for something as important as determining college readiness without even following the competitive bidding process?
• ACT has been denounced as an exit exam by 2 of the experts asked for testimony regarding the Oklahoma Standards Re-Write process. (16)

I'm sure there are other reasons to look at ACT for appropriateness as an end of year exam, but the point of the matter is that there are enough facts listed here that I would hope legislators would want to take another look at this option. We're not saying we don't want to use the ACT, we're simply saying:

1. HB3399 should be left as is and no language repealed as this was the bill voters wanted
2. Oklahoma shouldn't mandate in law a specific test/vendor to be given statewide 
3. A statewide test should not be chosen BEFORE the standards re-write process is complete
4. The competitive bidding process should not be circumvented for any reason because it protects taxpayer funds

Oklahoma has been here before in 2010, when a large omnibus bill (SB2033) - including Common Core - was passed by the legislature in order to be competitive for federal Race To The Top funds. Since that time, Oklahoma has found that A-F, TLE AND Common Core, were not the bill of goods sold. Let's not make another Common Core mistake. Let's not rush into ANY legislation. Let's take our time and study what is the best course of action - our standards aren't to be completed until 2015-2016 - WE HAVE TIME!

REFERENCES:

(1) https://readingdoc.wordpress.com/2015/02/11/act-vs-eoi-are-we-asking-the-right-question/

(2) http://www.nacacnet.org/research/research-data/nacac-research/Documents/DefiningPromise.pdf

(3) http://publications.sreb.org/2014/2014Policy_brief_ACT_SAT.pdf

(4) http://fairtest.org/university/optional

(5) ibid

(6) http://fairtest.org/sites/default/files/optrept.pdf

(7) http://news.yahoo.com/problem-using-act-high-school-exit-exam-191850535.html

(8) http://www.act.org/newsroom/act-to-launch-next-generation-college-and-career-readiness-assessment-system-aligned-to-common-core-state-standards-and-more/?year=archive&lang=english

(9) http://www.fairtest.org/pearsons-history-testing-problems

(10) http://dianeravitch.net/2014/04/22/fairtest-computer-test-failures-are-common/

(11) http://www.education.com/reference/article/Ref_ACT_Biased/

(12) http://www.act.org/newsroom/act-to-launch-next-generation-college-and-career-readiness-assessment-system-aligned-to-common-core-state-standards-and-more/?year=archive&lang=english
(13) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ca0QEM8NpFc
(14) http://www.act.org/newsroom/data/2013/pdf/profile/Oklahoma.pdf
(15) http://restoreoklahomapubliceducation.blogspot.com/2015/02/guest-post-dr-john-thompson-on-act-cut.html
(16) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ca0QEM8NpFc


**What is the difference between a NORM-referenced and a CRITERION-referenced test. 

A NORM-referenced test (NRT) is a test of general knowledge usually based on some kind of national standard (not locally determined standards), that provides a snapshot of how well one student performs on certain items when COMPARED to another. Results are reported as a percentage. Example: John Smith's Algebra scores shows him to be in the 75th percentile - meaning John Smith performed as well or better than 75% of the students taking that specific test. NORM-referenced tests cannot measure the learning achievement or progress of an entire group of students, just the relative performance of individuals within a group. Test questions are carefully worded to accentuate the differences among students, not determine if students have acquired specific knowledge. (ACT/SAT)

A CRITERION-referenced test (CRT) measure student performance in relation to a common set of fixed criteria - or standards. The test measures individual performance on the exam and provides a score specific to the test taker and not in relation to the rest of the group taking the exam. This test is usually given for the purpose of determining whether schools are successfully teaching students what they are expected to know and do (based on local standards). This test can determine if students have learned the standards they were taught