When Ohio’s new A-F school grading system is implemented in 2015, most schools will get a lower grade than what they get in the current system. Area educational leaders Kevin Kelly and Frank DePalma defend the new system, and in a DDN article give this explanation: “Ohio has raised its standards in bold and important ways for our children. … The lower grades are an inescapable part of the process of asking our schools, teachers and children to aim higher.”

The new system, according to Kelly and DePalma, will have a big pay-off.  “Going forward,” they promise, “a high school diploma will mean a graduate can succeed in college without first taking remedial classes, or is ready to join the workforce with the necessary entry-level skills.”  

The public has a right to be skeptical. Ohio’s new system is incorporates the principles of the No Child Left Behind federal law and the results of NCLB have been disappointing. In 2002, remember, promoters promised that, by 2014, NCLB would bring all children— regardless of ability or background — to “proficiency” in core knowledge and skills. As it is, 82% of schools have failed to meet their goal of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). The NCLB strategy of demanding more, giving low grades and rewarding and punishing didn’t work and Kelly and DePalma give no explanation why they are confident the NCLB strategy will work as part of Ohio’s new system.

The more important observation to be made, however, is that Ohio’s new A-F system fails to correct Ohio’s foundational deficiencies. Even if test scores go up, Ohio’s system of public education will still be woefully inadequate. We now have a system that at its foundation is thoroughly corrupted with the erroneous assumptions that guided NCLB:  1) The purpose of pubic education can be accomplished via the transmission of a standard curriculum, 2) The merit of  schools and teachers can be determined by the results of objective tests of this curriculum, 3) To aim higher means to seek to improve test scores.

The important goals that traditionally inspired the creation of public schools have largely been forgotten. Public education has always sought to build a bridge to a better future when human progress and culture exceeds what we experience in the present. It is our youth who will live in that future and who must be equipped with the qualities of wisdom and leadership worthy of the challenge. Our present system of public education is inadequate to the task and tinkering, duct taping, won’t work — guided by NCLB principles, public education is headed in the wrong direction.

Public education must be rebuilt on foundational principles such as these:  1) The purpose of our system of public education is accomplished by nurturing and empowering the yearning for learning and the desire to live purposefully found in every individual 2) The merit of schools and teachers is demonstrated in preparedness of the citizens they develop to live freely and to contribute fully to the success of their representative democracy 3) To aim higher means to seek to help each citizen to more fully develop his or her potential to be a thoughtful, effective and productive citizen.

If a system of public education would forget about raising test scores and instead would allocate its energy and resources to align with such principles, it’s a fascinating question what an educational program might look like and what indicators of accountability might be used to monitor such a program.  As the motivation of students and teachers would soar, test scores, I bet, would soar as well.

As it is, we are quickly approaching the time when the current system of public education will be indefensible. We need to rebuild public education from the ground up, using foundational principles very different than the principles that guide public education today. Rather than tinkering with and duct taping the current system, educational leaders should be putting resources into making the big break-throughs that will transform public education. We need to encourage each other to be inspired by the words of Robert Kennedy — “There are those that look at things the way they are, and ask why? I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?”

Ohio is phasing in a new A-F school grading system. When it is implemented, most schools and districts will receive a lower grade than what their evaluation in the current system would indicate. Now, 52% of Ohio schools are deemed “Excellent” or “Excellent with Distinction,” but in the new system only a few schools will be deemed worthy of a grade of “A”. Most schools will have a grade of “C” or less.

The point of the new system is to “raise the bar” with a tougher curriculum and harder tests and in so doing push students and schools to greater success. Here is what area educational leaders, Kevin Kelly and Frank DePalma, recently wrote in a DDN opinion article: “Ohio has raised its standards in bold and important ways for our children. When demands increase, it always takes time to adjust. The lower grades are an inescapable part of the process of asking our schools, teachers and children to aim higher.”

Yes, I agree that public education must be guided by higher aims and bolder purposes. But, really, the thought that the aims of public education can be distilled into objective tests of discrete academic curriculum is mind boggling. What is easily measurable has become most important to school evaluations and those elements of education that through the ages have always been considered most important — though difficult or impossible to measure — are being largely ignored.

The theory supporting this new grading system is that the merit of a school can be determined by analyzing the educational progress of its students — as measured in objective tests. The educational program itself — the use of school time and resources, the ethos of the school, the attitude of teachers and students toward the love of learning, the degree to which the school promotes a culture of thoughtfulness, empathy, respect, and the degree that its students and teachers practice good citizenship — according to this theory, should be simply ignored.

The philosophy of education that supports this new grading system is that the purpose of education is to transmit a a defined curriculum. It sees children as deficient — lacking in knowledge — and it sees the purpose of the school to correct that deficiency and to fill up the heads of kids with curriculum and other stuff, like “thinking skills.” This point of view asserts that objective tests can reliably assess how much knowledge the student has accumulated — the more the better — and when he or she has accumulated a sufficient quantity of this measurable knowledge, the student then is considered “educated.”

Flowing from this philosophy is the notion that a great teacher is anyone who can raise test scores and a great school is any organization that succeeds in getting most of its students to get acceptable test scores.

This guiding philosophy would have us believe that a child isolated at home or in an institution with a computer as his or her teacher has the same chance for a good education as a child within a loving school community and with a teacher who is his or her mentor. If the child makes acceptable scores, then his or her educational experience, by definition, was a success. This philosophy would have us believe that a school could be operated with a ruthless oppression worthy of North Korea — homogenizing children into non-thinking test taking automatons, brainwashing children into the acceptance of arbitrary authoritarianism and systematically crushing any independent thought by teachers or students — and, if the school’s test scores met the state’s criteria, the school could be deemed an “A+” school.

What is happening to public education seems so bizarre that anyone who thinks in terms of conspiracies has to wonder if the unstated, but underlying, aim of building a school evaluation system based on such a goofy and dangerous philosophy is, in fact, to destroy our system of public education and to replace it with something more business friendly. When we have diminished our understanding of what the purpose of public education actually is, then public schools can be given to the profiteers who will know how produce good test scores by using low-cost computers and by degrading the role of teachers to the status of low-paid blue collar workers.

We had a ten+ year experiment testing the philosophy that the way to make public education successful for students and communities is to center the whole system around transmitting a standardized curriculum and establishing accountability via the relentless giving of objective tests. The idea behind this experiment is that, if public policy is established that demands good test scores from schools and, if there are enough rewards and punishments, then, somehow, from this will emerge a good education. The results are in. It is clear that this approach to improving public education hasn’t worked and there is no reason to suppose giving harder tests and lower grades will make the results much better. While demanding more and grading harder may raise more students and schools to a level of minimum accomplishment, it seems clear that gearing up more and more pressure will not result in the explosion of quality that public education actually needs.

The problem is, the flawed and dangerous philosophy behind this experiment is so dominant it cannot be replaced unless a sufficiently compelling point of view and an inspiring model of public education takes its place. Communities must find a way to exert local control and must give a lot more thought into what makes a good school. Educators must create new school models that will show how the role of teachers can be elevated to a new level of professionalism. Through a vitalization of their local democracy, communities should work to define and implement a philosophy of education that will inspire students and teachers to do the hard work needed to achieve educational excellence.

Dayton businessman, Russ Gottesman, this morning announced that he is seeking to be the Democratic Party’s candidate to represent Ohio’s 10th Congressional District. The event was held at the Patterson Homestead on Brown Street.

Gottesman’s message is that as an entrepreneur who at an early age started his own successful company, he understands how to bring jobs to the community. He said, “Jobs — it is what it is all about.”  

It appears that Gottesman is about 35 years old — I can’t find his age. He is married with one child and has another child that will soon be born. This is his first attempt to gain elected office.

Gottesman started Commuter Advertising — a business which provides audio advertising on city busses and returns part of the advertising revenue to the bus companies. So far, city transportation companies have gained over $1 million through his business.

Republican Mike Turner currently represents Ohio’s 10th District and has been elected to that position six times. The 10th District includes all of Montgomery and Greene Counties and until the 2010 reapportionment, when Ohio lost two congressional seats, this region was designated as Ohio’s 3rd District. After reapportionment, the Dayton region became the 10th District and now it is considered one of the more competitive districts in the state. In the 2012 election, however, Turner won almost 60% of the vote, while the Democratic candidate, Sharen Neuhardt, received 37% and a Libertarian candidate received 3%.

Regardless that Gottesman’s literature promises “a campaign of ideas,” at this launch of his campaign, I failed to hear anything other than the usual boilerplate that any challenger might be expected to include — jobs, reaching across the isle, innovation, inclusiveness, building bridges, new voice, new leadership, etc.

After the speech, as I was eating one of the campaign’s pastry treats, one of Gottesman’s campaign workers asked what I thought about the speech. I told him that regardless that Gottesman projects a good spirit and a confident attitude, to me, Gottesman’s promise about creating jobs is simply unbelievable. I said, in fact, I couldn’t imagine anyone will be much impressed with his promise of creating jobs and that if he persists on making jobs his main message, he will be wasting a lot of effort that could be put to better use. I said, to my ear, Gottesman’s speech advanced a point of view that might be called “Republican Lite” — and that Gottesman failed to say anything that would make anyone think that he has any empathy or compassion for the plight of ordinary citizens. The speech, for my taste, was much too business-like and lacked heart. I explained to the campaign worker that, in my view, Gottesman’s speech failed to communicate passion and conviction and that I didn’t hear Gottesman say anything that would motivate the Democratic base to do the hard work that will be needed if he, or any Democrat, is to have any hope for victory. I said, if he is to have a chance, he needs to find the words that will communicate emotions that were missing in this initial effort.

Impressive today was the setting and overall organization of the event. About 50 people were in attendance. It appears that Gottesman has already put together an experienced team, and that, evidently, he has money to spend. Also impressive was the turn-out of much of the Montgomery County Democratic Party establishment. In each of the previous campaigns against Turner, this is the first time, in my memory, there has been such an early launch with a lot of the party establishment in attendance. Endorsed Democratic candidate for the Mayor of Dayton, Nan Whaley, introduced Gottesman and on the stage showing their support was Mark Owens, chair of the party, along with County Treasurer, Caroline Rice; County Commissioner, Dan Foley; County Recorder, Willis Blackshear; and State Representative, Fred Strahorn.

I’m wondering if this support by party leaders signals that there will be a push by the Montgomery County Democratic Party establishment to officially endorse Mr. Gottesman for the nomination — a push, as in the mayoral race and Ohio House races, to discourage unchosen Democrats from participating in the Democratic Primary.

Notably absent from this gathering was the Democratic candidate for Dayton mayor, A. J. Wagner — the candidate that failed to get the MCDP endorsement — and also absent were Wagner supporters, County Commissioners, Debbie Lieberman and Judy Dodge.