By: Guest Blogger
Editor’s Note: On Jan. 21, Superintendent Paolo DeMaria hosted a screening and panel discussion of the movie “Hidden Figures.” The event explored what we can do to continue to engage and inspire young people—especially women of color—to explore STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) careers. The Department collaborated with Battelle, COSI, The Ohio State University, Columbus State and Wilberforce University on the event. In honor of Black History Month, we invited Donnie Perkins to expand on the insights he provided at the event for this blog post.
Katherine Johnson, Dorothy Vaughan, Mary Jackson and numerous other colleagues, known as the “West Area Computers,” are finally receiving their due from another African-American woman, Margot Shetterly, in her book and Oscar-nominated movie “Hidden Figures.” President Barack Obama also recognized Katherine Johnson, a physicist, scientist and mathematician, with the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2015 for her service to NASA.
As a native of North Carolina during the Jim Crow era, I know firsthand the impact of racism, including the sting of colored and white schools, bathrooms and water fountains. Despite legalized segregation, pernicious racism, sexism and blatant hate throughout society, the West Area Computers—these “Sheros”—made major contributions to NASA and the space program. We stand on their shoulders!
I applaud the faith, dignity, courage, tenacity and academic and engineering excellence of the named and unnamed West Area Computers. They demonstrated the long-held African-American adage: “You have to work three times as hard to get half as far as the white man and still you will have miles to go.” Johnson, Vaughan, Jackson and their co-workers are true role models for ambitious women of all races and backgrounds today.
Shetterly’s book and movie raised several questions for me. Why has this true story remained hidden for so long? Why wasn’t this set of facts included in my history, science, math or engineering curriculum and textbooks throughout my educational experience? Are there more “unsung heroes” that we do not know about? Students should ask these questions every day, and teachers and faculty should be prepared to respond in the affirmative.
This true story offers insights on two levels—opportunity loss and the strength of diversity. Continued segregation and discrimination rob our society of great talent, innovation and leadership in engineering. It also demonstrates that intellect and talent are not vested in one group or another, that diverse teams, despite rampantly inequality, can achieve great things that benefit all citizens of our nation and the world. Just imagine what we could do when the nation decides to value and leverage our differences and similarities in pursuit of equality and justice for all and the American dream.
Our country and the world need more talented engineers. African Americans, Hispanic/Latinos, Native Americans and other underrepresented citizens—female and male—are a ready source. I offer a call to action:
Encourage women and diverse students to ask questions, particularly about the history of their ancestors’ contributions to American engineering, science, technology, innovation and culture.
Encourage teachers and faculty to research and include the contributions and innovations of women and diverse citizens in their curriculum and textbooks at each level of our education system.
Set high academic expectations for all students and support their efforts to achieve excellence.
Promote greater awareness of the engineering profession with increased collaboration between K-12 schools and colleges of engineering.
The truth cannot be hidden; excellence always rises to top. Diversity and inclusion drive excellence!
Donnie Perkins is chief diversity officer for the College of Engineering at The Ohio State University, where he leads college-wide initiatives that advance outcomes and integrate diversity and inclusion into the fabric and culture of the college. You can contact Donnie by clicking here.
Leave a Comment
By: Steve Gratz
Nearly 34 years ago, I started my career as a teacher of agriculture. One of the foundational instructional units all teachers of agriculture taught was “soils.” While teaching the soils unit, I would have students bring in a soil sample from their fields or gardens, and we would determine the soil texture of the sample. Soil texture is the fineness or coarseness of a soil—it describes the proportion of three sizes of soil particles: 1) sand—large particle; 2) silt—medium-sized particle; or 3) clay—small particle. Soil texture is important because it affects water-holding capacity—the ability of a soil to retain water for use by plants; permeability—the ease with which air and water may pass through the soil; soil workability—the ease with which soil may be tilled and the timing of working the soil after a rain; and the ability of plants to grow (for example, some root crops, like potatoes and onions, will have difficulty growing in a fine-textured soil).
Once we determined the percentage of sand, silt and clay, we would use the Soil Texture Triangle to determine the type of soil the student sampled. For example, if a student’s sample was 75 percent sand, 15 percent silt and 10 percent clay, the soil would be a sandy loam as determined by the Soil Texture Triangle. The Soil Texture Triangle might seem a bit difficult to read initially, but once you are instructed on how to use it, it becomes rather simple.
This blog post is not designed to teach you how to test soil or determine soil types, but rather to illustrate an example of a question that could be included on WorkKeys—an assessment that measures workplace skills. The WorkKeys assessment combined with an industry-approved, in-demand credential will result in a pathway to graduation for students.
The WorkKeys Locating Information assessment includes four levels of difficulty (3, 4, 5 or 6). According to ACT’s website, Level 3 is the least complex and Level 6 is the most complex. The levels build on each other, each incorporating the skills assessed at the preceding levels. For example, Level 5 includes the skills used at Levels 3, 4 and 5. At Level 3, examinees look for information in simple graphics and fill in information that is missing from them.
The soil texture triangle question is a Level 6 question because the question is based on very complicated, detailed graphics in a challenging format. Examinees must notice the connections between graphics, they must apply the information to a specific situation and they must use the information to draw conclusions.
Characteristics of Level 6 Locating Information items:
- Very complicated and detailed graphs, charts, tables, forms, maps and diagrams;
- Graphics contain large amounts of information and may have challenging formats;
- One or more graphics are used at a time; and
- Connections between graphics may be subtle.
Skills required of Level 6 Locating Information items:
- Draw conclusions based on one complicated graphic or several related graphics;
- Apply information from one or more complicated graphics to specific situations; and
- Use the information to make decisions.
Recently, I have been engaged in conversations with school administrators about the rigor of the WorkKeys assessment since it can result in a pathway to graduation for students. Through conversations, I find that most school administrators are unfamiliar with the WorkKeys assessment since it is new to the graduation pathway conversation. The WorkKeys assessment has been around for more than two decades and is supported by data from 20,000 job skills profiles and rooted in decades of workplace research. The WorkKeys assessment is based on situations in the everyday working world. It requires students to apply academic skills to correctly answer questions. WorkKeys can certify that students are ready for career success by measuring their skills, which will then help employers find, hire and develop quality talent.
I first took the WorkKeys assessment in 1996 and I received a composite score of 18. A score of 13 is required for students to qualify for graduation for the classes of 2018 and 2019. For the classes of 2020 and beyond, students will need a composite score of 14 or higher. The composite score is unique to Ohio and isn’t used by WorkKeys or other states. The composite score was established to not only ensure students are prepared for career success, but also so they can advance within their chosen pathways where advanced skills will be necessary.
I would encourage all educators to take the WorkKeys practice assessment to become familiar with the test. The practice test is free through OhioMeansJobs. Make sure you review the instructions prior to taking the assessment. On the official assessment you will be allowed to use a calculator and will be provided with a formula sheet of conversions similar to the one found by clicking here.
By the way, you can access numerous videos on the internet if you really want to learn how to determine the soil texture in your garden. You also can try your hand at answering a Level 6 Locating Information question using the Soil Texture Triangle.
Dr. Steve Gratz is senior executive director of the Center for Student Support and Education Options at the Ohio Department of Education, where he oversees creative ways to help students in Ohio achieve success in school. You can learn more about Steve by clicking here.
Leave a Comment
By: Julia Simmerer
The vision of the Department’s Center for the Teaching Profession is that all students have access to qualified, effective educators in safe, nurturing learning environments. Requiring our licensed educators to submit to regular background checks is one of ways we can help ensure Ohio’s educators share that vision.
Our Office of Professional Conduct frequently receives questions about Ohio’s background check requirements for licensed educators. Navigating through statutory requirements can be tedious and does not always provide practical guidance. Licensed educators and those applying for a license for the first time want to know what background checks they need to complete and when they are required.
Before getting into the requirements, it may be helpful to define the different types of background checks. By background checks, we simply mean a fingerprint check. Fingerprints are forwarded to the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation (BCI) for processing, where they look at the applicant’s criminal history in Ohio. This is commonly referred to as a BCI check. BCI then forwards the fingerprints to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to check a person’s criminal history in all 50 states. This is commonly referred to as a FBI check.
The type(s) of fingerprint check(s) required is determined by whether the person is an initial applicant, renewing a license or permanent license holder.
A person applying for an initial license must complete both the BCI and FBI checks at the time the application is made. The checks must be no older than 365 days at the time they are used for initial licensure.
Renewing a License
Those renewing a license are only required to have an updated FBI check every five years, as long as the following two conditions are met: the person has previously completed a BCI check and the person has lived in Ohio for the last five years. If these conditions are not met, the applicant must complete both the BCI and FBI checks for their application. When the applicant submits to renew a license (and this applies to permanent license holders as well), the date the application is submitted determines whether the applicant has completed an FBI check within the preceding five years or whether the person needs to update that check.
Permanent License Holders
Any person who holds a permanent license is only required to have an updated FBI check every five years, as long as the person has previously completed a BCI check and has lived in Ohio for the last five years.
Hopefully this information provides a quick and easy to understand overview of background checks. If you want to explore this topic further, you can find detailed information about the process by clicking here.
Julia Simmerer is senior executive director of the Center for the Teaching Profession at the Ohio Department of Education, where she oversees the implementation of policies and programs that support Ohio’s teacher and leader corps. You can learn more about Julia by clicking here.
Leave a Comment
By: Guest Blogger
In four years with the Straight A Fund innovation project, I have been gifted with the experience of seeing some highly creative and effective changes to the way we do school across the state. Ohio’s Straight A Fund supports ideas from local educators to promote better learning and cost savings within schools and districts. Working with our projects has led me to understand not only what works on the path to improvement, but also some of the pitfalls and distractions that may interfere with solid innovative thinking.
Successful change starts by defining a problem. A problem may be some nagging area that demands a solution, but a problem, in innovation terms, may also be something that is currently working but could be improved. Defining a problem before we look for solutions may seem quite simple, obvious even. However, without thinking about what we want an innovation to accomplish, it is very easy to become sidetracked into adopting some shiny new solution that does wonderful things—but is not a good fit for our situation. In education, just as in our personal lives with things we purchase, new bells and whistles can sometimes be very appealing. But like a Christmas toy that is only played with for a few moments before it is cast aside, some attractive new education toys also fail to live up to expectations. They may be too difficult in comparison to their value, poorly understood by the students who use them or offering a solution to a problem we don’t have.
As an example of innovation working well, the Straight A Fund has created a number of technology solutions. These projects have purchased hardware and software and trained teachers to be able to use them. As we consider how well these projects put their new technology to use, it is clear that the ability to successfully use these innovations and keep using them over time is increased by understanding the distinction between technology “toys” and technology “tools.” Successful projects have put technology tools to use in solving a problem they identified up front. Problems that have been addressed using technological tools include the need to teach students in a classroom who all have different strengths and abilities or the need for small and rural districts to connect their students to a wide variety of courses.
Defining a problem may require that we take a careful look at the way things are—even things that have always been and seem to be working as expected. Transporting students to and from school is an example. One of our innovative projects has improved transportation at a lower cost by merging across districts and using software to lay out the most efficient routes, compute idle time and even track when students are picked up and dropped off. This first required them to think outside the box of what they were accustomed to (that every district must have their own transportation system). A bonus associated with that project was the launch of a mobile app to communicate with parents on whether their student’s bus is on time, running late or on the way. And, the savings they experience from innovation can help expand on other education programs.
One final understanding that is helpful to the identification of a problem is look at it locally. Research and data can help us spot general trends in education to be on the lookout for. But, they may still need to be considered in terms of how they impact our own district. As an example, the cause and strategies to address chronic absenteeism will vary for each district.
In 2017, we hope to see continuing innovation in schools across the state, building on what we have learned in the Straight A Fund innovation program.
Dr. Susan Tave Zelman is an executive director at the Ohio Department of Education and oversees the Straight A Fund. You can reach her at Susan.Zelman@education.ohio.gov.
Leave a Comment
By: Virginia Ressa
As a new year begins, many of us set goals for improving ourselves or accomplishing something we have always wanted to do. Yet, so many of these New Year’s resolutions end up unfulfilled. I’ve asked myself, year after year, was I not committed enough? Did I pick the wrong goals? Did I not try hard enough? Did I just get lazy or distracted?
Research tells us that setting clear goals that are “SMART” is important to our success. SMART goals are specific, measurable, attainable, relevant and timely. Though the acronym can be defined multiple ways (the A can be attainable or achievable), the big idea is that we set goals that are clear and within our reach. When we set a goal that is too far beyond our current ability it is likely that we will lose our focus and commitment before we meet the goal. Is running a marathon a realistic goal for you? Or should you start with the goal of running a 5K?
We also need to know exactly what we are working toward – goals need to be clear and specific. “Get more exercise” is vague and can’t be tracked and measured. A more specific goal would be: “Build up to exercising three times a week by the end of March.” That is more specific, measurable, time-based and likely achievable.
You’ve probably already guessed where I’m going with this line of thinking – we can apply this same to setting goals with students. “Do better in math” is not the same as “earn an average of 80% correct on math facts practice sheets.” When we help students set goals that are specific and measurable they are more likely to achieve those goals. One of the most effective strategies is to make learning intentions clear. When learning intentions are clear, students understand what the expectations are and can track their progress towards those expectations. Consider our math facts example: a student who improves from 50% correct to 65% correct on their practice sheets can see progress and know they are moving in the right direction. If the goal had simply been to do better in math, the student would have seen some progress but without the benefit of knowing what the measure of better would be. Has she met her goal at 65%? Does she need to get 100% correct to be better? This confusion is akin to our adult who makes a resolution to get more exercise – there is no clear goal to tell them when they are successful.
As with every teaching practice or strategy we talk about, this one is not fool proof and will not work in every situation. However, it is a strong guideline to keep in mind when setting goals. If we want our students to be successful and meet high expectations, we need to be clear with them about what success looks like and what those high expectations are. Otherwise they are muddling through a vague set of criteria, trying to do better, not knowing if they are improving and lacking a clear destination.
Virginia Ressa is an education program specialist at the Ohio Department of Education, where she focuses on helping schools and educators meet the needs of diverse learners through professional learning. You can learn more about Virginia by clicking here.
Leave a Comment