Ohio flags spring testing data at 17 Northeast Ohio schools

"As part of ODEW’s statewide review, they found instances across the state of schools with possible state testing anomalies, including three of our school buildings. Our testing team is gathering and reviewing all related information. We are cooperating fully with ODEW to determine whether anything irregular occurred.” 

"Two weeks ago, the Schools were among the 52 public schools to receive notice from the Ohio Department of Education and Workforce of certain data anomalies in its testing data.  We are eager to assess the anomalies and resolve any concerns in full cooperation with the Department.  Student achievement and integrity are core tenets of our educational missions and testing protocols, and we have full confidence in the veracity of our quality student achievement results."

"T2 Honors Academy supports testing integrity, accountability, and appropriate state oversight. Our concern is not that ODEW reviewed statistical anomalies. Our concern is the apparent conflict between what T2 was told, what was communicated publicly, and the procedures governing testing-security matters.  

The first concern is the conflict between ODEW's letter to T2 and its public communication. The letter T2 received identified statistical anomalies and requested that we provide information so the Department could determine whether the anomalies warranted further investigation. In other words, the Department was still seeking information and had not yet communicated an individualized finding of misconduct.  Yet the 52 schools were publicly identified while that process was still underway.  That raises a straightforward question: If ODEW was still determining whether further investigation was warranted, why were the schools publicly identified before that determination was made and on the same day as the notification?

The second concern involves confidentiality.  ODEW's testing-security procedures address confidentiality in the handling of testing-security matters. Nevertheless, the identities of the 52 schools were publicly released while schools were still being asked to explain statistical anomalies. I believe this warrants an examination of the applicable testing-security procedures and a direct question to ODEW: At what point under its policies does a statistical anomaly review become information appropriate for public disclosure, and how was the September disclosure consistent with the confidentiality provisions governing testing-security matters?  Ohio-Test-Security-Provisions-and-Procedures-1.pdf [education.ohio.gov]

The third concern involves the reopening and rescoring of the Charter Schools Program (CSP) grant process and the timing of the subsequent testing-anomaly announcement. The CSP application deadline was June 17, and ODEW's published guidance expressly states that no changes will be accepted after the submission deadline. Nevertheless, in August, applicants were given another opportunity to access their applications and upload additional documentation. The communication was presented as an opportunity to submit additional materials; applicants were not clearly informed that these post-deadline submissions could result in applications being rescored or otherwise alter the competitive review (see rescoring on CSP grant webpage for call for peer reviewers twice   Charter Schools Program (CSP) Grant | Ohio Department of Education and Workforce [education.ohio.gov] ) . This distinction is significant because allowing new information after a competitive deadline—and then evaluating that information—can affect applicants differently from merely correcting an administrative or technical issue. Shortly thereafter, on September 4, ODEW publicly identified 52 schools with testing anomalies that it said “may result in further investigation,” including T2 Honors Academy. Of particular concern, only four of the 52 schools we identified as serving high-school grades were high schools, and three of those four—T2 Honors Academy, Cincinnati College Preparatory Academy, and Mount Auburn Preparatory Academy—were also on ODEW's CSP  Expansion eligible-applicant list; the fourth was a traditional public school and therefore was not a CSP applicant. This sequence does not, by itself, establish that the CSP process and anomaly review were connected. However, given the post-deadline reopening, the rescoring issue, the Department's own published rule regarding post-deadline changes, and the subsequent identification of T2 during an unresolved testing review shortly before CSP awards were announced, I believe the chronology warrants independent examination. I have therefore requested records concerning the original and revised CSP scores, who authorized the reopening, why it occurred, what applicants were told, and whether the testing-anomaly review played any role in the final CSP decision concerning T2. 

The consequences of these actions are real. Our students are asking why their school is being associated with cheating when no finding of misconduct has been communicated to us, and the credibility of academic gains produced through years of intentional instructional work has been placed under question. I have submitted public-records requests concerning the anomaly review, public disclosure, and CSP grant process, and I am awaiting those records. T2 is not asking to be exempt from scrutiny; we are asking ODEW to follow the same standards of consistency, transparency, and adherence to established procedures that it requires of schools. The fundamental questions remain: Why were schools publicly identified while ODEW was still determining whether further investigation was warranted? How was that disclosure reconciled with testing-security confidentiality procedures within their own testing manual? Why was the CSP process reopened for additional submissions when published guidance stated that changes would not be accepted after the deadline, and were applicants adequately informed of any resulting rescoring?  

With this information, there is a growing concern that ODEW and its respective offices are not being held to the same standard of compliance with established procedures and practices that they require of the schools they oversee. Schools should be able to rely on their governing state agency for fair, consistent, and transparent processes—not fear public allegations or reputational harm before the evidence has been fully reviewed and appropriate due process has occurred. When an agency's actions appear inconsistent with its own published procedures, there must be a meaningful mechanism for review and accountability. At present, it is unclear what effective recourse exists for schools to challenge procedural inconsistencies and ensure that ODEW itself is held accountable to the standards it establishes."