NEIFPE Member Susie Berry wrote this letter about the overuse of testing last fall...
Monday, September 2, 2013 - 12:01 am
As a former teacher, the beginning of the school year always makes me nostalgic for my many days (many years, really) of teaching kindergarten and first-grade students.
Since my retirement four years ago, the curriculum has changed, dramatically. More is expected of our youngest learners, and teachers must teach to this curriculum and to the increasing number of tests.
I wonder if children have time to act out rhymes and stories.
I wonder if teachers have time to read stories for the simple joys of reading and listening. I wonder if children have time to use manipulative to learn sorting, counting, adding and subtracting.
And I wonder if children have time to play — to process all they have learned during their busy school days.
Moving, reading, listening and playing are ways young children learn. Taking paper-and-pencil (and even computer) tests do not fit into a developmentally appropriate curriculum.
Call your legislator. Say “no” to all this testing time.
Susan Berry
Friday, December 27, 2013
Monday, December 23, 2013
Vic’s Statehouse Notes #163 – December 23, 2013
Dear Friends,
After opening with unanimous approval of a revised agreement on meeting procedures that had been negotiated earlier in the week, Superintendent Ritz and the State Board of Education efficiently completed a substantive meeting, adjourning at 1:30 compared to the 4:00pm adjournment of recent meetings.
School letter grades using Dr. Bennett’s old formula were approved by the Board by a vote of 9-1, with the dissent of Board Member Andrea Neal.
The State Board’s Executive Director on the Governor’s Center for Education and Career Innovation (CECI) staff announced that the state hearings on REPA 2/REPA 3 rule changes are scheduled for January 13, 14 and 16 in South Bend, Indianapolis and Evansville, respectively. All teachers and teacher educators should know that the effort to lower standards for teachers and administrators now known as REPA 3 are back and that the January hearings offer the public’s best opportunity to convince the State Board that these rule changes should be rejected. Details are below.
School Letter Grades
Using Dr. Bennett’s old system, school letter grades on the whole went up. More A’s and B’s and fewer C’s, D’s and F’s were recorded statewide than in 2012. There were many schools that experienced wild swings in grades which was attributed to the weaknesses in the growth section of the system. Much was said in the meeting about the new A-F system to come, which it was said will be used two years from now for the 2014-2015 student data.
It can’t be soon enough.
REPA 2/REPA 3
I was unaware until the Dec. 20th meeting that REPA 2 is back and the public hearings are scheduled for three weeks from now. That is your unwelcome December surprise.
REPA 2 was Dr. Bennett’s parting shot to try to lower standards for getting teacher and administrator licenses. He asked the State Board to pass the revised rules in December of 2012 after his election defeat. They were passed but with so many amendments that the Attorney General ruled that the rules could not be finalized until they were clarified and given another round of public hearings.
The CECI has now picked up the ball and is calling them REPA 3. They contain at least four really bad ideas:
Thank you for your advocacy for highly trained teachers and for public education!
Best wishes,
Vic Smith
ICPE is working to promote public education and oppose the privatization of schools in the Statehouse. We are preparing for the next session of the General Assembly beginning January 6th. Joel Hand will again serve as ICPE lobbyist for the session. We need your membership to help support his work. Many have renewed their memberships this fall, and we thank you! If you have not done so since July 1, the start of our new membership year, we urge you to renew by going to our website.
We need additional memberships to pay for our lobbying efforts which begin in January and to carry on our advocacy for public education. We need additional members and additional donations. We need your help!
Go to www.icpe2011.com for membership and renewal information and for full information on ICPE efforts on behalf of public education. Thanks!
Some readers have asked about my background in Indiana public schools. Thanks for asking! Here is a brief bio:
I am a lifelong Hoosier and began teaching in 1969. I served as a social studies teacher, curriculum developer, state research and evaluation consultant, state social studies consultant, district social studies supervisor, assistant principal, principal, educational association staff member, and adjunct university professor. I worked for Garrett-Keyser-Butler Schools, the Indiana University Social Studies Development Center, the Indiana Department of Education, the Indianapolis Public Schools, IUPUI, and the Indiana Urban Schools Association, from which I retired as Associate Director in 2009. I hold three degrees: B.A. in Ed., Ball State University, 1969; M.S. in Ed., Indiana University, 1972; and Ed.D., Indiana University, 1977, along with a Teacher’s Life License and a Superintendent’s License, 1998.
After opening with unanimous approval of a revised agreement on meeting procedures that had been negotiated earlier in the week, Superintendent Ritz and the State Board of Education efficiently completed a substantive meeting, adjourning at 1:30 compared to the 4:00pm adjournment of recent meetings.
School letter grades using Dr. Bennett’s old formula were approved by the Board by a vote of 9-1, with the dissent of Board Member Andrea Neal.
The State Board’s Executive Director on the Governor’s Center for Education and Career Innovation (CECI) staff announced that the state hearings on REPA 2/REPA 3 rule changes are scheduled for January 13, 14 and 16 in South Bend, Indianapolis and Evansville, respectively. All teachers and teacher educators should know that the effort to lower standards for teachers and administrators now known as REPA 3 are back and that the January hearings offer the public’s best opportunity to convince the State Board that these rule changes should be rejected. Details are below.
School Letter Grades
Using Dr. Bennett’s old system, school letter grades on the whole went up. More A’s and B’s and fewer C’s, D’s and F’s were recorded statewide than in 2012. There were many schools that experienced wild swings in grades which was attributed to the weaknesses in the growth section of the system. Much was said in the meeting about the new A-F system to come, which it was said will be used two years from now for the 2014-2015 student data.
It can’t be soon enough.
REPA 2/REPA 3
I was unaware until the Dec. 20th meeting that REPA 2 is back and the public hearings are scheduled for three weeks from now. That is your unwelcome December surprise.
REPA 2 was Dr. Bennett’s parting shot to try to lower standards for getting teacher and administrator licenses. He asked the State Board to pass the revised rules in December of 2012 after his election defeat. They were passed but with so many amendments that the Attorney General ruled that the rules could not be finalized until they were clarified and given another round of public hearings.
The CECI has now picked up the ball and is calling them REPA 3. They contain at least four really bad ideas:
1) Individuals with any four year degree can get a 5-year “Adjunct” teaching license.The hearings are in South Bend, Indianapolis and Evansville as announced in the Indiana Register:
2) Training required to get a principal’s license would be reduced.
3) Training required to get a superintendent’s license would be reduced.
4) Administrative certification can be offered by non-higher education organizations. Whether for-profit private organizations can become training sites for administrators and adjunct teachers is not clear but remains a possibility that should be clarified before the hearings.
Notice is hereby given that on January 13, 2014, at 10:00 a.m., at the St. Joseph CountySince Dr. Bennett had the REPA 2 passed in January of 2013, there are six new members of the State Board, so it is time to contact them about correcting this proposal. One new member, Brad Oliver, testified against REPA 2 in its only hearing in June of 2012.
Public Library, Main Branch, Colfax Auditorium, 304 South Main Street, South Bend, Indiana;
AND
on January 14, 2014, at 9:00 a.m., at the Indiana Government Center South, 402 West Washington Street, Conference
Center Room A, Indianapolis, Indiana;
AND
on January 16, 2014, at 9:30 a.m., at the Evansville Public Library System, McCullough Branch, Meeting Room, 5115 Washington Avenue, Evansville, Indiana,
the Indiana StateBoard of Education will hold public hearings on proposed changes to Title 511 of the Indiana Administrative Code
Thank you for your advocacy for highly trained teachers and for public education!
Best wishes,
Vic Smith
ICPE is working to promote public education and oppose the privatization of schools in the Statehouse. We are preparing for the next session of the General Assembly beginning January 6th. Joel Hand will again serve as ICPE lobbyist for the session. We need your membership to help support his work. Many have renewed their memberships this fall, and we thank you! If you have not done so since July 1, the start of our new membership year, we urge you to renew by going to our website.
We need additional memberships to pay for our lobbying efforts which begin in January and to carry on our advocacy for public education. We need additional members and additional donations. We need your help!
Go to www.icpe2011.com for membership and renewal information and for full information on ICPE efforts on behalf of public education. Thanks!
Some readers have asked about my background in Indiana public schools. Thanks for asking! Here is a brief bio:
I am a lifelong Hoosier and began teaching in 1969. I served as a social studies teacher, curriculum developer, state research and evaluation consultant, state social studies consultant, district social studies supervisor, assistant principal, principal, educational association staff member, and adjunct university professor. I worked for Garrett-Keyser-Butler Schools, the Indiana University Social Studies Development Center, the Indiana Department of Education, the Indianapolis Public Schools, IUPUI, and the Indiana Urban Schools Association, from which I retired as Associate Director in 2009. I hold three degrees: B.A. in Ed., Ball State University, 1969; M.S. in Ed., Indiana University, 1972; and Ed.D., Indiana University, 1977, along with a Teacher’s Life License and a Superintendent’s License, 1998.
###
Letters: Pence Obtuse on School Performance
NEIFPE member Lenny Duff wrote this letter about the A-F grading system last August...
Published: August 22, 2013 3:00 a.m.
I was taken aback by the comments made by Gov. Pence in (a recent) article related to ISTEP glitches and the Tony Bennett scandal, which, by the way, is an Indiana government administration scandal, not Bennett acting as a lone rogue warrior.
Gov. Pence’s comment — “We grade our kids every day. We ought to be willing to grade our schools every year” — made me think about Andy Dufresne (“Shawshank Redemption”) when he asks Warden Norton how he can be so obtuse in regard to his insensitive comments on how Andy may be innocent.
Children in classrooms are graded upon criteria they are taught and therefore held accountable to learn and retain. Are schools by virtue of the A-F grading system graded on such objective measures of performance?
Is the governor being honest with himself when making comments such as these when he knows very well that the socioeconomic and demographic circumstances within different schools makes it impossible to exclusively blame the schools for their poor performance?
Am I to understand that bad teachers and bad administrators within public schools are the reason for households that do not have the dad, time or resources to assist in the education of their children? Are Indiana taxpayers being held accountable for economic inequalities and the impact to public school performance?
Gov. Pence’s adamant support to pump millions of dollars into parochial and private schools, all the while leaving public schools with inadequate funding to raise the bar on performance, would indicate to me that the Indiana taxpayers are taking the fall. What does an Indiana future look like when the public school system is only left with those who cannot afford to pay the difference between the cost of a private school and the amount of a voucher? Who, again, gets left behind? Gov. Pence — obtuse. Is it deliberate?
Lenny R. Duff
Thursday, December 19, 2013
Vic’s Statehouse Notes #162 – December 19, 2013
Dear Friends,
Letter grades for Indiana schools are scheduled to be issued this Friday, December 20th, using Dr. Bennett’s flawed formula that the General Assembly rejected and thought that they had voided. HEA 1427 passed last April says, “Not later than November 15, 2013, the state board shall establish new categories or designations of school performance under the requirements of this chapter to replace 511 IAC 6.2-6. “
It didn’t happen.
The new letter grades to be announced Friday for 2012-13 will be based on the old failed formula. To speed up the change, the State Board would have needed to pass emergency rules which they showed no interest in doing. In the October State Board meeting, Board Secretary Dan Elsener praised the current A-F system and called for the employment of the consultant who helped Dr. Bennett with the formula. The Governor’s State Board staff attorney stated in the same October meeting that the old formula should be used two more times for 2013-14 data and 2014-15 data before ending it. That remains the current plan.
Meanwhile the battle for control of education policy rages on. Indiana taxpayers are now funding three different systems of schools, and Governor Pence’s 2014 legislative agenda does nothing to relieve the funding agonies of the biggest and largest of the three, Indiana’s community public schools.
School Letter Grades
The flaws of the current A-F system have been ignored in the news about State Board members trying to speed up letter grade announcements. In their controversial October 16th email action, now the subject of a lawsuit in Marion County filed by Bill Groth saying that State Board members violated the Open Door law, ten members asked legislative leaders to have the Legislative Services Agency calculate the letter grades without notifying their chair, Superintendent Ritz. The fact that this is all about a flawed and discredited formula has been ignored in the media.
No one should forget that the members of the General Assembly heard so many complaints about the unfair A-F system unveiled in 2012 that they voided it, or at least thought they did. The inadequacies of the system are fourfold:
Flaw #1: It is based primarily on the percent passing, rather than on improvement as PL221 called for.
Flaw #2: The bonuses for growth are anemic compared to the weight given to percent passing.
Flaw #3: The growth model used for bonus points is based on peer comparison statistics. This leads to capricious and unpredictable results about low-growth and high-growth students.
Flaw #4: In the final analysis, the current A-F system was badly miscalibrated. Many good schools received low grades, damaging the economic development efforts of communities all over Indiana as they try to explain to prospective businesses why their strong local schools ended up with a low grade using a flawed grading system. The current system is not fair to Indiana’s schools.
I presented details on these four points in public comments to the State Board meeting on November 8th. My comments on that day are attached for those who want a one-pager on the problems of our current system and the reasons the General Assembly lost confidence in it. Yet the members of the State Board apparently want to use it this year and for two additional years to grade our schools.
That makes no sense and challenges the rule of law. I wonder if any members of the General Assembly have noticed that the members of the State Board have somehow found a way to deny their legislative intent in HEA 1427.
Legislators heard your outrage about this letter grade system in 2012. I hope they will do so again this year.
I would hope that all public announcements about school letter grades by state or local officials will include a reminder to the public that this current system has been voided by action of the General Assembly and is in the process of being replaced with one that could deserve public confidence.
Three Different and Competing School Systems
In August, Governor Pence created the Center for Education and Career Innovation, a $5 million duplicative education bureaucracy, to divert control of Indiana education policy from Superintendent Ritz to his office. He was willing to do this, risking his national reputation for efficiency and small government, because of deep differences on educational policy.
As a result of seismic changes in the 2011 General Assembly, Indiana taxpayers are now funding three school systems which compete in a marketplace of schools:
Superintendent Ritz was elected as an advocate for community public schools, the largest of the three systems. She has said she supports community-based charter schools but not the efforts to bring to Indiana large scale for-profit charter school networks. She has in the past opposed the use of public dollars to subsidize tuition with vouchers for private schools, although after her election she resolutely pledged to enforce all voucher laws enacted by the General Assembly in 2011 and 2013.
Governor Pence was elected as an advocate for voucher schools and for charter schools. He put his power behind a major expansion of vouchers in the 2013 General Assembly which raised the voucher count to 20,000 this past fall. In his 2014 legislative agenda, his “Roadmap”, he has singled out charter schools for help, such as a plank to strengthen the state’s hand in taking underutilized buildings from local school boards for use by charter schools. Another plank would give state money to pay the differential to excellent public school teachers who want to transfer to low-performing charter schools that now pay teachers on average $12,000 less. Needless to say, this is not a hit with public school leaders who would lose excellent teachers from their schools due to this state incentive. Even an internal memo from his new education agency, the CECI, says that “the program has the appearance, rightly or wrongly, of showing favoritism towards charter schools.”
There is the word: favoritism. Since his election, the Governor has favored voucher schools and charter schools over community public schools. His new 2014 agenda contains nothing to help community public schools. His first budget gave a 2% increase for public school funding in the current year 2013-14 and only a 1% increase in 2014-15, the lowest non-recession funding increases since I started watching the General Assembly in 1997. Low funding levels have led to community-shaking agonies in Muncie, Carmel, Fortville (Mt. Vernon Schools) and others. Several districts face the loss of bus transportation funding due to property tax caps. The Indianapolis Public Schools, facing a $30 million deficit, has seen layoffs for three years in a row threaten the stability of remarkably improved programs such as the Harshman Magnet Middle School, recently highlighted in the Indianapolis Star.
In the intense conflict among these three competing school systems, the Governor is taking every legal edge to take policy control away from Superintendent Ritz and to maintain the growth of the two new systems at the expense of community public schools.
Governor Pence vs. State Superintendent Ritz
The Governor has all the power in this dispute with the State Superintendent. He has appointed State Board members who vigorously pursue his positions and join in his steady campaign to reduce the influence of the State Superintendent. If any vote is held, he will win. It is not surprising that a CECI memo discussed a plan to seek legislative changes to remove the State Superintendent as chair of the State Board. It is also not surprising that Superintendent Ritz reacted strongly to the CECI spending state-funded time outlining options for her demise as chair.
These are high stakes battles. The outcomes will shape the future of education in Indiana. The Governor has taken the lead in supporting charter schools and voucher schools while diminishing the funding for community public schools, just the opposite of the positions taken by Superintendent Ritz on this tripartite school mixture.
In the long run, however, the power is in the hands of the people. It is not yet clear that the people of Indiana want to let community public schools slowly disintegrate due to poor funding and high class sizes, leaving them to students of poverty and disability, while parents flee to voucher schools and charter schools.
The Future of Community Public Schools
Public schools have served Indiana well for over a hundred years. They are non-partisan and non-sectarian forums that bring whole communities together in ways that a fragmented system of private and charter schools could never do. Voting citizens are just waking up to the depth of this issue for our democracy and for the future of our communities. The final analysis in a democracy will be made by the voters, a very slow process.
Actually, the process began in 2012 when the voters chose Glenda Ritz over Tony Bennett. Without the voters, there would be no “Governor vs. State Superintendent” controversy, and Indiana would be rolling faster down the road to more vouchers and weaker community public schools in the vision of Governor Pence.
The people are deciding now which of the three school systems they want to support. Instead of taking politics out of education, as the Governor has said he wants to do, he has put it on the front burner. For advocates for public education, it needs to be on front burner to reverse the hard times that continue for too many of our community public schools.
The fact is that Indiana doesn’t have enough money to appropriately fund three different school systems. As one system is given preference, another system is diminished.
The voters will soon have a turn in 2014, this time in the form of legislative races for the Indiana House and the Indiana Senate. What priority will candidates give to the three different systems in Indiana? Will they back community public schools, charter public schools or voucher private schools? Will they support Governor Pence or Superintendent Ritz on education policy? The stakes in Indiana have never been higher.
I urge you to keep your legislators informed about the problems with school letter grades and the obvious policies of favoritism that are undermining and diminishing community public schools. Your participation in this generational battle on behalf of community public schools is greatly appreciated!
Best wishes,
Vic Smith
ICPE is working to promote public education and oppose the privatization of schools in the Statehouse. We are preparing for the next session of the General Assembly beginning January 6th. Joel Hand will again serve as ICPE lobbyist for the session. We need your membership to help support his work. Many have renewed their memberships this fall, and we thank you! If you have not done so since July 1, the start of our new membership year, we urge you to renew by going to our website.
We need additional memberships to pay for our lobbying efforts which begin in January and to carry on our advocacy for public education. We need additional members and additional donations. We need your help!
Go to www.icpe2011.com for membership and renewal information and for full information on ICPE efforts on behalf of public education. Thanks!
Some readers have asked about my background in Indiana public schools. Thanks for asking! Here is a brief bio:
I am a lifelong Hoosier and began teaching in 1969. I served as a social studies teacher, curriculum developer, state research and evaluation consultant, state social studies consultant, district social studies supervisor, assistant principal, principal, educational association staff member, and adjunct university professor. I worked for Garrett-Keyser-Butler Schools, the Indiana University Social Studies Development Center, the Indiana Department of Education, the Indianapolis Public Schools, IUPUI, and the Indiana Urban Schools Association, from which I retired as Associate Director in 2009. I hold three degrees: B.A. in Ed., Ball State University, 1969; M.S. in Ed., Indiana University, 1972; and Ed.D., Indiana University, 1977, along with a Teacher’s Life License and a Superintendent’s License, 1998.
Letter grades for Indiana schools are scheduled to be issued this Friday, December 20th, using Dr. Bennett’s flawed formula that the General Assembly rejected and thought that they had voided. HEA 1427 passed last April says, “Not later than November 15, 2013, the state board shall establish new categories or designations of school performance under the requirements of this chapter to replace 511 IAC 6.2-6. “
It didn’t happen.
The new letter grades to be announced Friday for 2012-13 will be based on the old failed formula. To speed up the change, the State Board would have needed to pass emergency rules which they showed no interest in doing. In the October State Board meeting, Board Secretary Dan Elsener praised the current A-F system and called for the employment of the consultant who helped Dr. Bennett with the formula. The Governor’s State Board staff attorney stated in the same October meeting that the old formula should be used two more times for 2013-14 data and 2014-15 data before ending it. That remains the current plan.
Meanwhile the battle for control of education policy rages on. Indiana taxpayers are now funding three different systems of schools, and Governor Pence’s 2014 legislative agenda does nothing to relieve the funding agonies of the biggest and largest of the three, Indiana’s community public schools.
School Letter Grades
The flaws of the current A-F system have been ignored in the news about State Board members trying to speed up letter grade announcements. In their controversial October 16th email action, now the subject of a lawsuit in Marion County filed by Bill Groth saying that State Board members violated the Open Door law, ten members asked legislative leaders to have the Legislative Services Agency calculate the letter grades without notifying their chair, Superintendent Ritz. The fact that this is all about a flawed and discredited formula has been ignored in the media.
No one should forget that the members of the General Assembly heard so many complaints about the unfair A-F system unveiled in 2012 that they voided it, or at least thought they did. The inadequacies of the system are fourfold:
Flaw #1: It is based primarily on the percent passing, rather than on improvement as PL221 called for.
Flaw #2: The bonuses for growth are anemic compared to the weight given to percent passing.
Flaw #3: The growth model used for bonus points is based on peer comparison statistics. This leads to capricious and unpredictable results about low-growth and high-growth students.
Flaw #4: In the final analysis, the current A-F system was badly miscalibrated. Many good schools received low grades, damaging the economic development efforts of communities all over Indiana as they try to explain to prospective businesses why their strong local schools ended up with a low grade using a flawed grading system. The current system is not fair to Indiana’s schools.
I presented details on these four points in public comments to the State Board meeting on November 8th. My comments on that day are attached for those who want a one-pager on the problems of our current system and the reasons the General Assembly lost confidence in it. Yet the members of the State Board apparently want to use it this year and for two additional years to grade our schools.
That makes no sense and challenges the rule of law. I wonder if any members of the General Assembly have noticed that the members of the State Board have somehow found a way to deny their legislative intent in HEA 1427.
Legislators heard your outrage about this letter grade system in 2012. I hope they will do so again this year.
I would hope that all public announcements about school letter grades by state or local officials will include a reminder to the public that this current system has been voided by action of the General Assembly and is in the process of being replaced with one that could deserve public confidence.
Three Different and Competing School Systems
In August, Governor Pence created the Center for Education and Career Innovation, a $5 million duplicative education bureaucracy, to divert control of Indiana education policy from Superintendent Ritz to his office. He was willing to do this, risking his national reputation for efficiency and small government, because of deep differences on educational policy.
As a result of seismic changes in the 2011 General Assembly, Indiana taxpayers are now funding three school systems which compete in a marketplace of schools:
1) Community Public Schools, established in Indiana’s 1851 Constitution, serving 291 communities or geographic areas, open to all students, tuition free, governed by a school board which is in most cases elected, non-sectarian and non-partisan, unionized under Governor Bowen’s collective bargaining law passed in 1973 which was revised in 2011, serving over 1 million students in over 1800 schools.In the deep controversy between Governor Pence and State Superintendent Ritz which has now reverberated to the pages of the New York Times, each official is identified with different elements of this tripartite system.
2) Charter Public Schools, established by the General Assembly in 2001, not linked to a geographic area and open to any student in the state, tuition free, governed by an authorizer and an appointed school board, non-sectarian, non-unionized, serving about 30,000 students in about 80 schools.
3) Voucher Private Schools, established by the General Assembly in 2011, not linked to a geographic area, open to students whose application is accepted by the private school, tuition paid or subsidized by taxpayer funded vouchers and by taxpayer subsidized scholarships from Scholarship Granting Organizations, governed by appointed school boards, primarily sectarian religious schools (98%), non-unionized, serving about 100,000 students with about 20,000 receiving vouchers.
Superintendent Ritz was elected as an advocate for community public schools, the largest of the three systems. She has said she supports community-based charter schools but not the efforts to bring to Indiana large scale for-profit charter school networks. She has in the past opposed the use of public dollars to subsidize tuition with vouchers for private schools, although after her election she resolutely pledged to enforce all voucher laws enacted by the General Assembly in 2011 and 2013.
Governor Pence was elected as an advocate for voucher schools and for charter schools. He put his power behind a major expansion of vouchers in the 2013 General Assembly which raised the voucher count to 20,000 this past fall. In his 2014 legislative agenda, his “Roadmap”, he has singled out charter schools for help, such as a plank to strengthen the state’s hand in taking underutilized buildings from local school boards for use by charter schools. Another plank would give state money to pay the differential to excellent public school teachers who want to transfer to low-performing charter schools that now pay teachers on average $12,000 less. Needless to say, this is not a hit with public school leaders who would lose excellent teachers from their schools due to this state incentive. Even an internal memo from his new education agency, the CECI, says that “the program has the appearance, rightly or wrongly, of showing favoritism towards charter schools.”
There is the word: favoritism. Since his election, the Governor has favored voucher schools and charter schools over community public schools. His new 2014 agenda contains nothing to help community public schools. His first budget gave a 2% increase for public school funding in the current year 2013-14 and only a 1% increase in 2014-15, the lowest non-recession funding increases since I started watching the General Assembly in 1997. Low funding levels have led to community-shaking agonies in Muncie, Carmel, Fortville (Mt. Vernon Schools) and others. Several districts face the loss of bus transportation funding due to property tax caps. The Indianapolis Public Schools, facing a $30 million deficit, has seen layoffs for three years in a row threaten the stability of remarkably improved programs such as the Harshman Magnet Middle School, recently highlighted in the Indianapolis Star.
In the intense conflict among these three competing school systems, the Governor is taking every legal edge to take policy control away from Superintendent Ritz and to maintain the growth of the two new systems at the expense of community public schools.
Governor Pence vs. State Superintendent Ritz
The Governor has all the power in this dispute with the State Superintendent. He has appointed State Board members who vigorously pursue his positions and join in his steady campaign to reduce the influence of the State Superintendent. If any vote is held, he will win. It is not surprising that a CECI memo discussed a plan to seek legislative changes to remove the State Superintendent as chair of the State Board. It is also not surprising that Superintendent Ritz reacted strongly to the CECI spending state-funded time outlining options for her demise as chair.
These are high stakes battles. The outcomes will shape the future of education in Indiana. The Governor has taken the lead in supporting charter schools and voucher schools while diminishing the funding for community public schools, just the opposite of the positions taken by Superintendent Ritz on this tripartite school mixture.
In the long run, however, the power is in the hands of the people. It is not yet clear that the people of Indiana want to let community public schools slowly disintegrate due to poor funding and high class sizes, leaving them to students of poverty and disability, while parents flee to voucher schools and charter schools.
The Future of Community Public Schools
Public schools have served Indiana well for over a hundred years. They are non-partisan and non-sectarian forums that bring whole communities together in ways that a fragmented system of private and charter schools could never do. Voting citizens are just waking up to the depth of this issue for our democracy and for the future of our communities. The final analysis in a democracy will be made by the voters, a very slow process.
Actually, the process began in 2012 when the voters chose Glenda Ritz over Tony Bennett. Without the voters, there would be no “Governor vs. State Superintendent” controversy, and Indiana would be rolling faster down the road to more vouchers and weaker community public schools in the vision of Governor Pence.
The people are deciding now which of the three school systems they want to support. Instead of taking politics out of education, as the Governor has said he wants to do, he has put it on the front burner. For advocates for public education, it needs to be on front burner to reverse the hard times that continue for too many of our community public schools.
The fact is that Indiana doesn’t have enough money to appropriately fund three different school systems. As one system is given preference, another system is diminished.
The voters will soon have a turn in 2014, this time in the form of legislative races for the Indiana House and the Indiana Senate. What priority will candidates give to the three different systems in Indiana? Will they back community public schools, charter public schools or voucher private schools? Will they support Governor Pence or Superintendent Ritz on education policy? The stakes in Indiana have never been higher.
I urge you to keep your legislators informed about the problems with school letter grades and the obvious policies of favoritism that are undermining and diminishing community public schools. Your participation in this generational battle on behalf of community public schools is greatly appreciated!
Best wishes,
Vic Smith
ICPE is working to promote public education and oppose the privatization of schools in the Statehouse. We are preparing for the next session of the General Assembly beginning January 6th. Joel Hand will again serve as ICPE lobbyist for the session. We need your membership to help support his work. Many have renewed their memberships this fall, and we thank you! If you have not done so since July 1, the start of our new membership year, we urge you to renew by going to our website.
We need additional memberships to pay for our lobbying efforts which begin in January and to carry on our advocacy for public education. We need additional members and additional donations. We need your help!
Go to www.icpe2011.com for membership and renewal information and for full information on ICPE efforts on behalf of public education. Thanks!
Some readers have asked about my background in Indiana public schools. Thanks for asking! Here is a brief bio:
I am a lifelong Hoosier and began teaching in 1969. I served as a social studies teacher, curriculum developer, state research and evaluation consultant, state social studies consultant, district social studies supervisor, assistant principal, principal, educational association staff member, and adjunct university professor. I worked for Garrett-Keyser-Butler Schools, the Indiana University Social Studies Development Center, the Indiana Department of Education, the Indianapolis Public Schools, IUPUI, and the Indiana Urban Schools Association, from which I retired as Associate Director in 2009. I hold three degrees: B.A. in Ed., Ball State University, 1969; M.S. in Ed., Indiana University, 1972; and Ed.D., Indiana University, 1977, along with a Teacher’s Life License and a Superintendent’s License, 1998.
###
Wednesday, December 18, 2013
Letters: Parents remain best gauge of what’s best in their children’s schools
NEIFPE member Anne Duff wrote this letter about the A-F grading system last August...
Published: August 22, 2013 3:00 a.m.
Congratulations to the Fort Wayne Community Schools Board of Trustees on its resolution to dispense with the Bennett A-F grading system. However, as a parent with three children in Fort Wayne Community Schools, I would like to have seen the word “Bennett” removed.
Having said that, I don’t agree with any grading system that rates our schools. I believe these systems have been put into place to gradually weed out schools – whether they are good or “bad”- so that privatizers and corporate entities can come in and take over our public schools, making a profit on the backs of our children.
Who can judge a school? Do we need an A-F grading system that stigmatizes our schools? Do we need an outside accrediting agency to tell us how our school is doing? Absolutely not. The answer to who knows whether a school is successful is obvious: parents. They know what they want for their children’s education.
Parents want a curriculum that has high academic standards, is rich in the arts and social sciences, offers an adequate amount of time to eat lunch and have recess, has afterschool programs, updates technology regularly, uses a variety of methods to instruct children, and has teachers who love their students and love their jobs.
Steve Corona was spot on with his analogy of buying a gas stove. How did he ultimately decide which stove to buy? He valued the opinion of someone he trusted. We make choices by listening to someone we trust. If I were to choose a new school for my children, I would do my research online, but ultimately, I would ask those I trusted. How did I find the schools my children currently attend? By talking with teachers and parents. Our teachers and parents are proud of their schools and want to share with others the great things that are happening. They both are in the trenches every day. Who would know more about what is going on and how schools are meeting the needs of our children?
I don’t need some constantly changing, unexplainable A-F system to tell me where my kids should go to school; I want caring, passionate individuals to tell me what they see and what they feel and what they know.
Again, congratulations and thank you to the FWCS board for taking huge steps in denouncing the reform movement with their resolutions against vouchers, charter schools and now the A-F grading system. Their stand on what is harmful to our children and to public schools is courageous.
ANNE DUFF
Fort Wayne
Tuesday, December 17, 2013
Letters: Bring Back the Joy of Learning
Today's letter is from NEIFPE co-founder, Donna Roof
Letter to the editor: Time to save public education, bring back joy of learning
Letter to the editor: Time to save public education, bring back joy of learning
Monday, December 16, 2013 - 8:58 am
I am a public school teacher. I am a breast cancer survivor.
I dreamed as a little girl of the day I would be a teacher. I never dreamed as a woman that I would one day be a cancer survivor. So now I am both and proud that I am. I speak to you today as both, for you see there are times these days that being an educator is more challenging, more stressful, more worrisome and more exhausting than being a cancer patient/survivor.
I never in my wildest imagination dreamed I would one day be in a fight for my life. I also never ever dreamed I’d be in the fight of a lifetime to save my students’ joy of learning, my public schools and my profession. I didn’t just wake up one day and my lump was there. It had been there all along, undetected.
The same holds true for what is happening to public education. The education reform movement has been there all along, too, mostly undetected. But now it has metastasized at unparalleled speed and is no longer hidden. I have seen how my having cancer affects those around me. I have seen and, sadly, continue to see how the siphoning off of public funds from public schools, an A-F grade system to label schools and more and more testing affect my students, my colleagues, my district, my neighborhood, my community and my city.
Nevertheless, we persevere and succeed because that’s what public schools do. The lessons learned as a cancer patient/survivor are plentiful. Perhaps the most important lesson is that I learned not to let the cancer define who I am. In the same manner I will not allow all that is happening in education define who I am as a teacher, although I know there are those who like to paint me with their brush of pejoratives like union thug and status quo.
I know what kind of teacher I am, for I hold that belief in my heart, and there is no way to measure that. Teaching is much more than my career; it is my passion. Every day I enter my classroom believing I am a master teacher, for if I didn’t hold true to that claim, I shouldn’t be there. Even more importantly, I refuse to let all that is happening in education define my students, my school, my district, my community, my city.
My students have so much potential. My students’ lives are more complicated than I can ever begin to imagine. They overcome seemingly insurmountable obstacles and are successful because they meet their challenges. If you could see my students, you would know what I mean. They are so much more than data points. They are unique individuals with dreams and goals.
I so want them to dare “to color outside the lines” and not just simply bubble in a test circle. I welcome any politician or state board member to come to my classroom — not for a photo op but to teach. My physicians saved my life and brought back my joy of living. It is time to save the life of public education and bring back the joy of learning.
Give all students equal educational opportunities. Our future and our democracy depend on public schools. As Martin Luther King, Jr. once stated, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”
Donna Roof
Friday, December 13, 2013
Letters: Impressions of Pence
Today's letter is from NEIFPE co-founder, Phyllis Bush
Letter to the editor: Impressions of Pence has reader questioning
Letter to the editor: Impressions of Pence has reader questioning
Thursday, December 12, 2013 - 12:01 am
Gov. Pence had his first town hall here in Fort Wayne last July. Most of the meeting was centered around people railing about Common Core and Obamacare.
However, I was completely taken aback by a woman in the audience who pleaded with Pence about getting rid of “these here old teachers” who have jobs for life because of tenure. As I sat back waiting to hear “Mike” clarify that Indiana teachers do not have and have not had tenure in recent memory, I was appalled that he agreed with her and said that he would do something about it.
This leads me to this conclusion. Either the governor didn’t know anything about education policy issues, or he chose to let her continue to believe her mistaken information. With that meeting in mind, I keep reading that Pence’s people are saying Glenda Ritz is playing politics. They keep saying that the governor has no intention of making her role appointive. They keep saying that he really likes Glenda.
If these statements are true, would someone please point me to a quote and a date from the governor where he clearly issued a statement saying that he wants the state board to stop this bullying of Ritz and this apparent power grab by the CECI? Until I see that, I am going to go shopping for a bridge to nowhere.
Phyllis A. Bush
Thursday, December 12, 2013
Letters: NEIFPE Member Responds to Oliver
This morning a letter appeared to the editor of the Fort Journal Gazette from Brad Oliver. Mr. Oliver is a member of the Indiana State Board of Education from Muncie. A link to the letter is below.
Here is a letter from NEIFPE member and co-founder Terry Springer in response to Mr. Oliver's letter.
Read Brad Oliver's letter HERE.
Here is a letter from NEIFPE member and co-founder Terry Springer in response to Mr. Oliver's letter.
Dear Dr. Oliver,
I am one of the NEIPFE members you met with in Fort Wayne in the fall. We appreciated your willingness to come to Ft. Wayne to meet with us and share your perspective on how the SBOE was operating and your view of the governor's policies and Glenda Ritz's role. I was hopeful that your appointment to the Board would bring a voice of reason and a champion for children, but I was a wary because of your comments about Ritz's lack of leadership experience. You asserted that your main focus is on what is best for the children of Indiana. Since that time, I believe your actions belie your words. You continue to accuse Superintendent Ritz of a lack of leadership and to blame her for the contentious atmosphere on the SBOE and for taking actions she deems necessary. Do you think anyone watching the behavior of the SBOE and listening to the meetings as they are live-streamed does not know that the problem is not just of Glenda Ritz's making? Do you think that anyone paying attention and watching those meetings sees board members as trying to make the relationship among the members work? Do you think anyone who listens to the governor's announcements and his creation of an unnecessary - and costly- education agency usurping the role of the DOE does not see that public schools dedicated to educating all children in Indiana are in jeopardy? Do you think anyone with an even limited understanding of politics does not see the political influence behind a governor's appointments?
As I think back on all that you told us at that meeting and your words and actions since that time, I now think that you are not truly a supporter of public education. You tried to convince us at that meeting in the fall that the new agency the governor created was not really an agency. Perhaps that is what you believed. Since that time, it has become pretty clear that it is an agency that is costing tax payers money and that it plays a role in undermining the elected superintendent and the DOE. The issues that you bring up in your letter to the editor in this morning's Journal-Gazette about Ritz's casting aspersions on board members or making unsupported claims fall on deaf ears here in light of the Board's behavior during meetings - evident in body language, tone of voice and words. As you note, the governor rejected the design for restructuring the governance of the SBOE; however, the email along with other actions including the governor's 2014 education agenda suggests that plans are well afoot to make significant changes - changes that threaten the existence of public education - changes that privatize education in Indiana - that will serve a few to the detriment of the many - changes that undermine the democratic process in this state.
Thinking back on all that you told us in that fall meeting, I now think you have left the public education arena in terms of the choices you made for your own children and for your career and that you stand with those who are willing to sacrifice public schools for privatized, parochial education in which tax dollars will support religious education in the name of parent choice. It now seems to me that you stand with those who "choose" a parochial education because they don't want their children to go to school with "those" children not like themselves. That you stand on the side of those who are willing to punish schools and teachers and also children by labeling them as failures in a system designed to do just that. Those of us who stayed in public schools and kept our children in public schools - even when everything was not perfect - believe that public education ultimately works for the common good and contributes to our democracy and that reforms should support programs in public education rather than deprive them of funding that makes the work they do only harder. From what I can see the SBOE is not focused on reducing the impact of harmful testing and labeling as you said you wanted to do. Instead, it works behind the scenes in emails to force distribution of grades from a flawed system and then accuses the Superintendent of not doing her job and overstepping her boundaries. I would assert that the SBOE, the governor, and the Republican legislators are more responsible for the dysfunction. I believe in the ability of intelligent, well-intentioned people to overcome challenges and to solve problems. And so I am both disappointed and outraged at the failure of SBOE to overcome political differences and find a common ground to work for all kids in our state.
Read Brad Oliver's letter HERE.
Wednesday, December 11, 2013
Educators for Freedom Sign on Letter
Freedom Indiana has asked for help with regard to HJR-6 from Educators.
Below is the Educators for Freedom Sign on Letter.
Freedom Indiana would appreciate it if you would please print it out and sign it.
This will not be published but will be hand delivered to legislators in the area before they vote on HJR-6.
Your signature needs to be returned by Friday, December 20th.
There are three ways to get it to them.
1. Sign it, scan it, and email it as an attachment. (You can email it to neifpe@gmail.com, and we will forward your signature to Freedom Indiana)
2. Mail it to Freedom Indiana 3402 Fairfield Ave Fort Wayne, IN 46807
3. Drop it off at Wunderkammer Company on Fairfield (Old Casa's Restaurant).
There are 26 days until the session starts. Thank you for helping to protect our constitution from this unnecessary amendment.
You can copy the information below or CLICK HERE to download a pdf copy for printing.
As a Hoosier educator, I have dedicated my life to sharing knowledge with students who come from all walks of life and diverse backgrounds.I believe our state must do everything in its power to attract, educate and retain top talent while ensuring that all students feel welcome here.
Educators across our state are opposed to HJR-6 because it would prevent Indiana from accomplishing those goals. That's why schools such as Indiana University, Ball State University and Wabash College support the Freedom Indiana campaign to protect their students, faculty, and staff from permanent changes to our Constitution that would eliminate or prevent protections for certain Hoosiers.
It's also why businesses, organizations and community leaders such as Cummins, Emmis Communications, Eli Lilly, the Indianapolis Chamber of Commerce, and Mayor Tom Henry have taken strong stands against HJR-6: They know it would brand Indiana as an unwelcoming place.
As an educator, I know it's critical to educate and respect the whole student. Educators also know that the success of our students and schools depends on a safe, thoughtful learning environment where students feel protected, not excluded. That's something all Hoosiers deserve, and it's why I'm proud to stand up for my students by opposing HJR-6.
Name of school
Address
Contact name
Position/Title
Phone
Email
Website
Below is the Educators for Freedom Sign on Letter.
Freedom Indiana would appreciate it if you would please print it out and sign it.
This will not be published but will be hand delivered to legislators in the area before they vote on HJR-6.
Your signature needs to be returned by Friday, December 20th.
There are three ways to get it to them.
1. Sign it, scan it, and email it as an attachment. (You can email it to neifpe@gmail.com, and we will forward your signature to Freedom Indiana)
2. Mail it to Freedom Indiana 3402 Fairfield Ave Fort Wayne, IN 46807
3. Drop it off at Wunderkammer Company on Fairfield (Old Casa's Restaurant).
There are 26 days until the session starts. Thank you for helping to protect our constitution from this unnecessary amendment.
You can copy the information below or CLICK HERE to download a pdf copy for printing.
Educators For Freedom: Oppose HJR-6
As a Hoosier educator, I have dedicated my life to sharing knowledge with students who come from all walks of life and diverse backgrounds.I believe our state must do everything in its power to attract, educate and retain top talent while ensuring that all students feel welcome here.
Educators across our state are opposed to HJR-6 because it would prevent Indiana from accomplishing those goals. That's why schools such as Indiana University, Ball State University and Wabash College support the Freedom Indiana campaign to protect their students, faculty, and staff from permanent changes to our Constitution that would eliminate or prevent protections for certain Hoosiers.
It's also why businesses, organizations and community leaders such as Cummins, Emmis Communications, Eli Lilly, the Indianapolis Chamber of Commerce, and Mayor Tom Henry have taken strong stands against HJR-6: They know it would brand Indiana as an unwelcoming place.
As an educator, I know it's critical to educate and respect the whole student. Educators also know that the success of our students and schools depends on a safe, thoughtful learning environment where students feel protected, not excluded. That's something all Hoosiers deserve, and it's why I'm proud to stand up for my students by opposing HJR-6.
Name of school
Address
Contact name
Position/Title
Phone
Website
Saturday, December 7, 2013
Vic’s Statehouse Notes #161 – December 6, 2013
Dear Friends,
National Assessment test results released in November showed that Indiana students performed very well in comparison to national averages. This has happened several times before, a positive story that few have noticed. All in all, Indiana’s performance on NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress) has been an overlooked story of improvement in Indiana’s public schools over the past 20 years.
Politicians, including Dr. Bennett, have tried to claim this year’s NAEP success as evidence of the success of recent reform efforts, but the details below will show that improvement on NAEP reprises similar gains made in 1996, 2003 and 2007.
Data also clearly show a bigger gain among 4th graders than among 8th graders. This result is likely to be linked to data presented by Dr. Richard Hill to the State Board on September 4th that 2500 3rd graders were retained and tested again as 3rd graders due to retention rules pushed through by Dr. Bennett. Previously, about 600 were retained in 3rd grade each year. Taking approximately 2000 students who could not pass ISTEP out of the 4th grade cohort could go a long way to explain why 4th grade scores on the National Assessment noticeably went up.
Findings for 2013
Indiana began participation in the National Assessment in 1990. NAEP identifies a stratified random sample of students to take the test, generally given every two year. It is known as “the nation’s report card” from a time when politicians thought it would not be necessary to test every child to see how the schools were doing. National Assessment has survived as a respected measure while “No Child Left Behind” results initiated in 2002 have already faded in disrepute and waivers.
There was a time in the 1990’s when participation was optional at the local level, but that discretion ended when PL221 was passed and participation in NAEP testing was required by rules passed by the Indiana State Board of Education. The data below therefore show every result that Indiana has recorded in the NAEP testing program.
Diane Ravitch, in an article entitled “The Myth of Charter Schools,” has described the meaning of the basic, proficient and advanced standards used to report National Assessment results:
Grade 4 Math – Basic Standard: % AT OR ABOVE BASIC
...............................................INDIANA..........US........IN:US GAP
Mathematics..Gr.4 1992.........60%...........57%...........+3
.........................Gr.4 1996.........72%...........61%...........+11
.........................Gr.4 2000.........77%...........64%...........+13
.........................Gr.4 2003.........82%...........76%...........+6
.........................Gr.4 2005.........84%...........79%...........+5
.........................Gr.4 2007.........89%...........81%...........+8
.........................Gr.4 2009.........87%...........81%...........+6
.........................Gr.4 2011.........87%...........82%...........+5
.........................Gr.4 2013.........90%...........82%...........+8
The 2013 Indiana math results showed a solid improvement of 3% among 4th graders on the basic standard. The historical record above shows that even bigger 5% gains were recorded in 2007, 2003 and 2000. In 1996, an eye-popping 12% gain was recorded in 1996 when Project Primetime was actively reducing class sizes in the early grades. Indiana’s advantage over the national average reached +8% in 2013, a level reached or exceeded previously in 2007, 2000 and 1996. Note that Indiana has been higher than the national average on every assessment on this table.
Grade 4 Reading – Basic Standard: % AT OR ABOVE BASIC
...............................................INDIANA..........US........IN:US GAP
Reading ....... Gr.4 1992.........68%...........60%........... +8
........................Gr.4 1994.........66%...........59%........... +7
........................Gr.4 2002.........68%...........62%........... +6
........................Gr.4 2003.........66%...........62%........... +4
........................Gr.4 2005.........64%...........62%........... +2
........................Gr.4 2007.........68%...........66%........... +2
........................Gr.4 2009.........70%...........66%........... +6
........................Gr.4 2011.........68%...........66%........... +2
........................Gr.4 2013.........73%...........67%........... +6
The 2013 Indiana reading results showed a 5% improvement over the previous test, 1% higher than the previous highest gain of 4% in 2007. Indiana’s advantage over the national average reached +6% in 2013, a level reached or exceeded previously in 2009, 2002, 1994 and 1992. Note that Indiana has been higher than the national average on every assessment on this table.
Grade 8 Math – Basic Standard: % AT OR ABOVE BASIC
...............................................INDIANA..........US........IN:US GAP
Mathematics..Gr.8 1990.........56%...........51% ........... +5
.........................Gr.8 1992.........60%...........56% ........... +4
.........................Gr.8 1996.........68%...........59% ........... +9
.........................Gr.8 2000.........74%...........62% ........... +12
.........................Gr.8 2003.........74%...........67% ........... +7
.........................Gr.8 2005.........74%...........68% ........... +6
.........................Gr.8 2007.........76%...........70% ........... +6
.........................Gr.8 2009.........78%...........71% ........... +7
.........................Gr.8 2011.........77%...........72% ........... +5
.........................Gr.8 2013.........77%...........73% ........... +4
The 2013 Indiana math results for Grade 8 showed no change from the previous test in 2011 on the basic standard. The historical record above shows that Indiana’s advantage over the national average was +4 in 2013, a figure equaled or exceeded in every test to date. In 2000, Indiana recorded a double digit advantage over the nation of +12. Note that Indiana has been higher than the national average on every assessment on this table.
Grade 8 Reading – Basic Standard: % AT OR ABOVE BASIC
...............................................INDIANA..........US........IN:US GAP
Reading ....... Gr.8 2002.........77%...........74%........... +3
........................Gr.8 2003.........77%...........72%........... +5
........................Gr.8 2005.........73%...........71%........... +2
........................Gr.8 2007.........76%...........73%........... +3
........................Gr.8 2009.........79%...........74%........... +5
........................Gr.8 2011.........78%...........75%........... +3
........................Gr.8 2013.........79%...........77%........... +2
The 2013 Indiana reading results for Grade 8 showed a 1% gain over the 2011 test on the basic standard, equaling the 79% level reached once before in 2009. The historical record above shows that Indiana’s advantage over the national average in 2013 was +2, a figure equaled or exceeded in every test to date. Note that Indiana has been higher than the national average on every assessment on this table.
Proficient Standard Attached
By now, if you are still reading, you have probably seen enough numbers for a while. The conclusions are clear. On the Basic standard, the one Diane Ravitch equated to a “C”, the Grade 4 scores jumped up noticeably, while the Grade 8 scores remained stable. On the Proficient standard, equated to “an A or a very strong B”, there is a similar set of numbers which show a higher gains in Grade 4 than in Grade 8. You can examine the attached NAEP results for the Proficient data if you are so inclined.
This raises a key question: Why are Grade 4 gains noticeably higher that Grade 8?
The ISTEP Report from Dr. Richard Hill
Dr. Richard Hill was the national testing expert retained by the Indiana Department of Education to review the CTB/McGraw online testing debacle last spring. His report to the General Assembly last summer and to the State Board of Education on September 4th revealed that Grade 4 ISTEP scores went up while Grade 3 scores went down. This Grade 3 result contradicted his finding that in general scores at every grade followed trends of previous years in support of his overall conclusion that the online disruptions did not invalidate the Spring ISTEP tests, so he looked more closely at the 3rd and 4th Grade data.
He reported that 2500 Grade 3 were retained and retested as Grade 3 students, whereas in past years approximately 600 had been retained. This, he said, could account for the drop in Grade 3 scores and the rise in Grade 4 scores unrelated to the online disruptions.
This documentation also could account for rising test scores on NAEP in Grade 4 and would explain why an equally strong gain was not seen in Grade 8 NAEP scores. If Indiana took nearly 2000 ISTEP-failing students out of the Grade 4 cohort of approximately 75,000 for the 2013 NAEP tests, anyone would expect the 4th grade tests to get a noticeable bump up. The same effect was not active for Grade 8 scores, which showed stable and only modest gains, as seen on the NAEP table attached. You can examine the scores and draw your own conclusion. I believe it is clear that a smaller Grade 4 cohort cleansed of IREAD-failing students would account for noticeable gains on NAEP in Grade 4 and much greater gains in Grade 4 than in Grade 8.
This analysis debunks the claims of those who say a reform agenda of private schools vouchers, 3rd grade reading promotion tests and merit pay created higher NAEP scores.
It Worked for Florida
Governor Daniels and State Superintendent Bennett invited Jeb Bush and other Florida leaders to the September 2009 meeting of the Indiana Education Roundtable to tout the reforms in Florida that Indiana might adopt, especially a reading test for promotion to 4th grade. The validation of the Florida program was entirely based on NAEP gains in 4th grade reading. Elaborate data graphs about Florida’s gains were presented, showing positive results for every subgroup.
No one mentioned that day that reducing the Grade 4 cohort by several thousand Grade 3 retentions had influenced the positive Florida results on Grade 4 NAEP.
No one mentioned that day that Indiana’s 4th graders have had a long record of consistently higher NAEP scores in math when compared to Florida’s 4th graders.
No one mentioned that day that Indiana’s 8th graders have had a long record of consistently higher NAEP scores in both reading and math when compared to Florida’s 8th graders.
A masterful marketing job was mounted using only 4th grade NAEP reading results, propelling passage in the 2010 session of the reading law which Dr. Bennett used to create IREAD tests to determine promotion to 4th grade. The program lives on. When Superintendent Ritz was presenting her proposed changes to the reading program in the July State Board meeting of this year, Dan Elsener interrupted her presentation and her plan was tabled, perhaps permanently.
One can well imagine that a plan to export Indiana’s reform package of vouchers, merit pay and 3rd grade reading tests based on NAEP success has been considered, following the model of Florida. That thought gives more importance to understanding NAEP results as I have presented them above in their complete historical context.
Thanks for your support and actions on behalf of public education!
Best wishes,
Vic Smith
ICPE is working to promote public education and oppose the privatization of schools in the Statehouse. We are preparing for the next session of the General Assembly beginning in January. Joel Hand will again serve as ICPE lobbyist for the session. We need your membership to help support his work. Many have renewed their memberships this fall, and we thank you! If you have not done so since July 1, the start of our new membership year, we urge you to renew by going to our website.
We need additional support to carry on our advocacy for public education. We need additional members and additional donations. We need your help!
Go to www.icpe2011.com for membership and renewal information and for full information on our three ICPE membership meetings this fall. Thanks!
Some readers have asked about my background in Indiana public schools. Thanks for asking! Here is a brief bio:
I am a lifelong Hoosier and began teaching in 1969. I served as a social studies teacher, curriculum developer, state research and evaluation consultant, state social studies consultant, district social studies supervisor, assistant principal, principal, educational association staff member, and adjunct university professor. I worked for Garrett-Keyser-Butler Schools, the Indiana University Social Studies Development Center, the Indiana Department of Education, the Indianapolis Public Schools, IUPUI, and the Indiana Urban Schools Association, from which I retired as Associate Director in 2009. I hold three degrees: B.A. in Ed., Ball State University, 1969; M.S. in Ed., Indiana University, 1972; and Ed.D., Indiana University, 1977, along with a Teacher’s Life License and a Superintendent’s License, 1998.
National Assessment test results released in November showed that Indiana students performed very well in comparison to national averages. This has happened several times before, a positive story that few have noticed. All in all, Indiana’s performance on NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress) has been an overlooked story of improvement in Indiana’s public schools over the past 20 years.
Politicians, including Dr. Bennett, have tried to claim this year’s NAEP success as evidence of the success of recent reform efforts, but the details below will show that improvement on NAEP reprises similar gains made in 1996, 2003 and 2007.
Data also clearly show a bigger gain among 4th graders than among 8th graders. This result is likely to be linked to data presented by Dr. Richard Hill to the State Board on September 4th that 2500 3rd graders were retained and tested again as 3rd graders due to retention rules pushed through by Dr. Bennett. Previously, about 600 were retained in 3rd grade each year. Taking approximately 2000 students who could not pass ISTEP out of the 4th grade cohort could go a long way to explain why 4th grade scores on the National Assessment noticeably went up.
Findings for 2013
Indiana began participation in the National Assessment in 1990. NAEP identifies a stratified random sample of students to take the test, generally given every two year. It is known as “the nation’s report card” from a time when politicians thought it would not be necessary to test every child to see how the schools were doing. National Assessment has survived as a respected measure while “No Child Left Behind” results initiated in 2002 have already faded in disrepute and waivers.
There was a time in the 1990’s when participation was optional at the local level, but that discretion ended when PL221 was passed and participation in NAEP testing was required by rules passed by the Indiana State Board of Education. The data below therefore show every result that Indiana has recorded in the NAEP testing program.
Diane Ravitch, in an article entitled “The Myth of Charter Schools,” has described the meaning of the basic, proficient and advanced standards used to report National Assessment results:
“I served as a member of the governing board for the national tests for seven years… The highest level of performance, “advanced,” is equivalent to an A+, representing the highest possible academic performance. The next level, “proficient,” is equivalent to an A or a very strong B. The next level is “basic,” which probably translates into a C grade.”Since 2000, I have reported NAEP results at the basic and proficient level in my annual report on improvement in Indiana’s public schools. The most recent full report from June 2013 and a new update on NAEP data are both available for those who want all the data. With this background about the National Assessment, consider now the 2013 results for Indiana in their historical context.
Grade 4 Math – Basic Standard: % AT OR ABOVE BASIC
...............................................INDIANA..........US........IN:US GAP
Mathematics..Gr.4 1992.........60%...........57%...........+3
.........................Gr.4 1996.........72%...........61%...........+11
.........................Gr.4 2000.........77%...........64%...........+13
.........................Gr.4 2003.........82%...........76%...........+6
.........................Gr.4 2005.........84%...........79%...........+5
.........................Gr.4 2007.........89%...........81%...........+8
.........................Gr.4 2009.........87%...........81%...........+6
.........................Gr.4 2011.........87%...........82%...........+5
.........................Gr.4 2013.........90%...........82%...........+8
The 2013 Indiana math results showed a solid improvement of 3% among 4th graders on the basic standard. The historical record above shows that even bigger 5% gains were recorded in 2007, 2003 and 2000. In 1996, an eye-popping 12% gain was recorded in 1996 when Project Primetime was actively reducing class sizes in the early grades. Indiana’s advantage over the national average reached +8% in 2013, a level reached or exceeded previously in 2007, 2000 and 1996. Note that Indiana has been higher than the national average on every assessment on this table.
Grade 4 Reading – Basic Standard: % AT OR ABOVE BASIC
...............................................INDIANA..........US........IN:US GAP
Reading ....... Gr.4 1992.........68%...........60%........... +8
........................Gr.4 1994.........66%...........59%........... +7
........................Gr.4 2002.........68%...........62%........... +6
........................Gr.4 2003.........66%...........62%........... +4
........................Gr.4 2005.........64%...........62%........... +2
........................Gr.4 2007.........68%...........66%........... +2
........................Gr.4 2009.........70%...........66%........... +6
........................Gr.4 2011.........68%...........66%........... +2
........................Gr.4 2013.........73%...........67%........... +6
The 2013 Indiana reading results showed a 5% improvement over the previous test, 1% higher than the previous highest gain of 4% in 2007. Indiana’s advantage over the national average reached +6% in 2013, a level reached or exceeded previously in 2009, 2002, 1994 and 1992. Note that Indiana has been higher than the national average on every assessment on this table.
Grade 8 Math – Basic Standard: % AT OR ABOVE BASIC
...............................................INDIANA..........US........IN:US GAP
Mathematics..Gr.8 1990.........56%...........51% ........... +5
.........................Gr.8 1992.........60%...........56% ........... +4
.........................Gr.8 1996.........68%...........59% ........... +9
.........................Gr.8 2000.........74%...........62% ........... +12
.........................Gr.8 2003.........74%...........67% ........... +7
.........................Gr.8 2005.........74%...........68% ........... +6
.........................Gr.8 2007.........76%...........70% ........... +6
.........................Gr.8 2009.........78%...........71% ........... +7
.........................Gr.8 2011.........77%...........72% ........... +5
.........................Gr.8 2013.........77%...........73% ........... +4
The 2013 Indiana math results for Grade 8 showed no change from the previous test in 2011 on the basic standard. The historical record above shows that Indiana’s advantage over the national average was +4 in 2013, a figure equaled or exceeded in every test to date. In 2000, Indiana recorded a double digit advantage over the nation of +12. Note that Indiana has been higher than the national average on every assessment on this table.
Grade 8 Reading – Basic Standard: % AT OR ABOVE BASIC
...............................................INDIANA..........US........IN:US GAP
Reading ....... Gr.8 2002.........77%...........74%........... +3
........................Gr.8 2003.........77%...........72%........... +5
........................Gr.8 2005.........73%...........71%........... +2
........................Gr.8 2007.........76%...........73%........... +3
........................Gr.8 2009.........79%...........74%........... +5
........................Gr.8 2011.........78%...........75%........... +3
........................Gr.8 2013.........79%...........77%........... +2
The 2013 Indiana reading results for Grade 8 showed a 1% gain over the 2011 test on the basic standard, equaling the 79% level reached once before in 2009. The historical record above shows that Indiana’s advantage over the national average in 2013 was +2, a figure equaled or exceeded in every test to date. Note that Indiana has been higher than the national average on every assessment on this table.
Proficient Standard Attached
By now, if you are still reading, you have probably seen enough numbers for a while. The conclusions are clear. On the Basic standard, the one Diane Ravitch equated to a “C”, the Grade 4 scores jumped up noticeably, while the Grade 8 scores remained stable. On the Proficient standard, equated to “an A or a very strong B”, there is a similar set of numbers which show a higher gains in Grade 4 than in Grade 8. You can examine the attached NAEP results for the Proficient data if you are so inclined.
This raises a key question: Why are Grade 4 gains noticeably higher that Grade 8?
The ISTEP Report from Dr. Richard Hill
Dr. Richard Hill was the national testing expert retained by the Indiana Department of Education to review the CTB/McGraw online testing debacle last spring. His report to the General Assembly last summer and to the State Board of Education on September 4th revealed that Grade 4 ISTEP scores went up while Grade 3 scores went down. This Grade 3 result contradicted his finding that in general scores at every grade followed trends of previous years in support of his overall conclusion that the online disruptions did not invalidate the Spring ISTEP tests, so he looked more closely at the 3rd and 4th Grade data.
He reported that 2500 Grade 3 were retained and retested as Grade 3 students, whereas in past years approximately 600 had been retained. This, he said, could account for the drop in Grade 3 scores and the rise in Grade 4 scores unrelated to the online disruptions.
This documentation also could account for rising test scores on NAEP in Grade 4 and would explain why an equally strong gain was not seen in Grade 8 NAEP scores. If Indiana took nearly 2000 ISTEP-failing students out of the Grade 4 cohort of approximately 75,000 for the 2013 NAEP tests, anyone would expect the 4th grade tests to get a noticeable bump up. The same effect was not active for Grade 8 scores, which showed stable and only modest gains, as seen on the NAEP table attached. You can examine the scores and draw your own conclusion. I believe it is clear that a smaller Grade 4 cohort cleansed of IREAD-failing students would account for noticeable gains on NAEP in Grade 4 and much greater gains in Grade 4 than in Grade 8.
This analysis debunks the claims of those who say a reform agenda of private schools vouchers, 3rd grade reading promotion tests and merit pay created higher NAEP scores.
It Worked for Florida
Governor Daniels and State Superintendent Bennett invited Jeb Bush and other Florida leaders to the September 2009 meeting of the Indiana Education Roundtable to tout the reforms in Florida that Indiana might adopt, especially a reading test for promotion to 4th grade. The validation of the Florida program was entirely based on NAEP gains in 4th grade reading. Elaborate data graphs about Florida’s gains were presented, showing positive results for every subgroup.
No one mentioned that day that reducing the Grade 4 cohort by several thousand Grade 3 retentions had influenced the positive Florida results on Grade 4 NAEP.
No one mentioned that day that Indiana’s 4th graders have had a long record of consistently higher NAEP scores in math when compared to Florida’s 4th graders.
No one mentioned that day that Indiana’s 8th graders have had a long record of consistently higher NAEP scores in both reading and math when compared to Florida’s 8th graders.
A masterful marketing job was mounted using only 4th grade NAEP reading results, propelling passage in the 2010 session of the reading law which Dr. Bennett used to create IREAD tests to determine promotion to 4th grade. The program lives on. When Superintendent Ritz was presenting her proposed changes to the reading program in the July State Board meeting of this year, Dan Elsener interrupted her presentation and her plan was tabled, perhaps permanently.
One can well imagine that a plan to export Indiana’s reform package of vouchers, merit pay and 3rd grade reading tests based on NAEP success has been considered, following the model of Florida. That thought gives more importance to understanding NAEP results as I have presented them above in their complete historical context.
Thanks for your support and actions on behalf of public education!
Best wishes,
Vic Smith
ICPE is working to promote public education and oppose the privatization of schools in the Statehouse. We are preparing for the next session of the General Assembly beginning in January. Joel Hand will again serve as ICPE lobbyist for the session. We need your membership to help support his work. Many have renewed their memberships this fall, and we thank you! If you have not done so since July 1, the start of our new membership year, we urge you to renew by going to our website.
We need additional support to carry on our advocacy for public education. We need additional members and additional donations. We need your help!
Go to www.icpe2011.com for membership and renewal information and for full information on our three ICPE membership meetings this fall. Thanks!
Some readers have asked about my background in Indiana public schools. Thanks for asking! Here is a brief bio:
I am a lifelong Hoosier and began teaching in 1969. I served as a social studies teacher, curriculum developer, state research and evaluation consultant, state social studies consultant, district social studies supervisor, assistant principal, principal, educational association staff member, and adjunct university professor. I worked for Garrett-Keyser-Butler Schools, the Indiana University Social Studies Development Center, the Indiana Department of Education, the Indianapolis Public Schools, IUPUI, and the Indiana Urban Schools Association, from which I retired as Associate Director in 2009. I hold three degrees: B.A. in Ed., Ball State University, 1969; M.S. in Ed., Indiana University, 1972; and Ed.D., Indiana University, 1977, along with a Teacher’s Life License and a Superintendent’s License, 1998.
###
Thursday, December 5, 2013
Synopsis of the CECI Document
Here's an excellent synopsis of the CECI document from our friend, Jenny Robinson:
Here is the CECI document. It includes recommendations on a number of things, including redefining the role of the state superintendent so that a governor-appointed state board member would chair the policy-making state board of education...but also on liquidating "unused" or "underutilized" public school buildings, seizing the associated local property tax funds, and potentially channeling those assets into the private sector. Direct quote: "...removing the requirement of maintenance of buildings from school corporations allows school corporations to focus on educating children rather than on facilities maintenance." Has CECI posted this document anywhere publicly? Thanks to Ritz's DOE for posting it and shedding some light on this shadowy agency.
Also, under "Pre-Kindergarten": "It is critical that any pre-K program have strong accountability based on outcome data that measures whether or not providers are preparing students to be ready for Kindergarten. Work has already been done to develop pre-K standards and assessment, but we must connect pre-K to K-3 policy, including a strong emphasis on literacy. Consistent with having high levels of accountability, providers who do not meet expectations for Kindergarten preparedness should face strong penalties including removal from the program.
Wednesday, December 4, 2013
CECI Plans to Remove Superintendent Ritz as chair of State Board of Education
The job of the Indiana Superintendent of Public Instruction is being threatened!
Daniel Altman, press secretary for the Indiana Department of Education posted the following on the DOE web site today:
Indiana Department of Education Releases CECI Roadmap
Wednesday, December 4, 2013
Daniel Altman
Press Secretary
(317) 232-0550
daltman@doe.in.gov
INDIANAPOLIS – In response to a reporter’s question about attempts by the State Board of Education and Governor Pence’s Center for Education and Career Innovation (CECI) to remove her power, Indiana Superintendent of Public Instruction Glenda Ritz today reaffirmed her position that the CECI is seeking to have her removed as Chair of the State Board and lessen her authority.
Below is a document that was sent from a CECI attorney regarding the CECI’s plans to remove Superintendent Ritz as chair. Section five of the document details those plans. The document is CECI’s roadmap to:
Also below is a preliminary draft of a bill that was circulated at an interim summer study committee that would take away authority from the Department of Education over carefully protected student privacy data.
“As an educator and a parent, I know that the protection of student information is one of the key roles of the Department.
“I am committed to ensuring that the elected Office of the Superintendent continues to serve as chair of the State Board while preserving the authority of the Department to protect the voice of the voters and the integrity of public education in Indiana."
A copy of the documents can be found here.
Daniel Altman, press secretary for the Indiana Department of Education posted the following on the DOE web site today:
~~~
Indiana Department of Education Releases CECI Roadmap
Wednesday, December 4, 2013
Daniel Altman
Press Secretary
(317) 232-0550
daltman@doe.in.gov
INDIANAPOLIS – In response to a reporter’s question about attempts by the State Board of Education and Governor Pence’s Center for Education and Career Innovation (CECI) to remove her power, Indiana Superintendent of Public Instruction Glenda Ritz today reaffirmed her position that the CECI is seeking to have her removed as Chair of the State Board and lessen her authority.
Below is a document that was sent from a CECI attorney regarding the CECI’s plans to remove Superintendent Ritz as chair. Section five of the document details those plans. The document is CECI’s roadmap to:
-Remove the elected Superintendent as chair of the State Board;“Last year, I was elected to lead the Indiana Department of Education and chair the State Board of Education,” said Superintendent Ritz. “This document shows that the CECI is attempting to change a governing structure that has worked for over 100 years, under both Democrats and Republicans.”
-Continue the corporatization of public education to the detriment of public education in our state;
-Transfer and erode local control over school facilities; and
-Take away authority statutorily given to the Department of Education.
Also below is a preliminary draft of a bill that was circulated at an interim summer study committee that would take away authority from the Department of Education over carefully protected student privacy data.
“As an educator and a parent, I know that the protection of student information is one of the key roles of the Department.
“I am committed to ensuring that the elected Office of the Superintendent continues to serve as chair of the State Board while preserving the authority of the Department to protect the voice of the voters and the integrity of public education in Indiana."
A copy of the documents can be found here.
###
Friday, November 22, 2013
Action: November 22, 2013
Let's continue to remind our Governor that the citizens of Indiana voted for and support Glenda Ritz.
1. Buy a book of stamps.
2. Print up suggested script.
3. Stamp envelopes.
4. Give to friends.
We are going to keep reposting this all week. Our letters and calls are making many people in Indy nervous. These people are responsible for many, many bad policies and destructive policies. If you haven't written yet, please write today. Please let them know that you are paying attention and that you vote.
Every citizen who supports Glenda Ritz should mail a letter to Governor Pence and the State Board of Education to communicate our disapproval. Please keep your letters polite and avoid vitriol.
The letter should state:
The citizens of Indiana elected Glenda Ritz. We do not support the actions taken by our Governor and the State Board of Education. Please begin to work with Glenda Ritz.
1. Buy a book of stamps.
2. Print up suggested script.
3. Stamp envelopes.
4. Give to friends.
We are going to keep reposting this all week. Our letters and calls are making many people in Indy nervous. These people are responsible for many, many bad policies and destructive policies. If you haven't written yet, please write today. Please let them know that you are paying attention and that you vote.
Every citizen who supports Glenda Ritz should mail a letter to Governor Pence and the State Board of Education to communicate our disapproval. Please keep your letters polite and avoid vitriol.
The letter should state:
The citizens of Indiana elected Glenda Ritz. We do not support the actions taken by our Governor and the State Board of Education. Please begin to work with Glenda Ritz.
- Office of Governor Pence, Statehouse, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204-2797
- Glenda Ritz, Room 229 State House,Indianapolis IN 46204
- Tony Walker, 363 S. Lake Street, Gary, IN 46403
- David Freitas, 1700 Mishawaka Avenue, South Bend, IN 46634
- Carl Whicker, Riverview Middle School, 2465 Waterworks Road, Huntington, IN 46750
- Sarah O’Brien, River Birch Elementary School, 5456 E. 75 N, Avon, IN 46123
- Andrea Neal, 7034 N. Park Ave, Indianapolis, IN 46220
- Brad Oliver, Indiana Wesleyan Univerisity, 1900 W. 50th St. Marion, IN 46935
- Daniel Elsener, Marian University, 3200 Cold Springs Road, Indianapolis, IN 4622
- B.J. Watts, 11148 Saint Wendel Road, Evansville, IN 47720
- Troy Albert, Henryville Jr.Sr. High School, 213 N Ferguson, Henryville, IN 47126
- Gordon Hendry education@gordonhendry.com
Saturday, November 16, 2013
Action: November 16, 2013
Let's start a movement to remind our Governor that the citizens of Indiana voted for and support Glenda Ritz.
Every citizen who supports Glenda Ritz should mail a letter to Governor Pence and the State Board of Education to communicate our disapproval. Please keep your letters polite and avoid vitriol.
The letter should state:
The citizens of Indiana elected Glenda Ritz. We do not support the actions taken by our Governor and the State Board of Education. Please begin to work with Glenda Ritz.
Every citizen who supports Glenda Ritz should mail a letter to Governor Pence and the State Board of Education to communicate our disapproval. Please keep your letters polite and avoid vitriol.
The letter should state:
The citizens of Indiana elected Glenda Ritz. We do not support the actions taken by our Governor and the State Board of Education. Please begin to work with Glenda Ritz.
- Office of Governor Pence, Statehouse, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204-2797
- Glenda Ritz, Room 229 State House,Indianapolis IN 46204
- Tony Walker, 363 S. Lake Street, Gary, IN 46403
- David Freitas, 1700 Mishawaka Avenue, South Bend, IN 46634
- Carl Whicker, Riverview Middle School, 2465 Waterworks Road, Huntington, IN 46750
- Sarah O’Brien, River Birch Elementary School, 5456 E. 75 N, Avon, IN 46123
- Andrea Neal, 7034 N. Park Ave, Indianapolis, IN 46220
- Brad Oliver, Indiana Wesleyan Univerisity, 1900 W. 50th St. Marion, IN 46935
- Daniel Elsener, Marian University, 3200 Cold Springs Road, Indianapolis, IN 4622
- B.J. Watts, 11148 Saint Wendel Road, Evansville, IN 47720
- Troy Albert, Henryville Jr.Sr. High School, 213 N Ferguson, Henryville, IN 47126
- Gordon Hendry education@gordonhendry.com
NEIFPE Speaks To Indiana School Board
NEIFPE members Donna Roof and Phyllis Bush spoke to the Indiana State Board of Education on Wednesday, November 13, 2013.
(From Anthony Cody's blog entry, Educators Flunk the School Grading System in Indiana.)
Donna Roof: Time to Bring Back the Joy of Learning
Phyllis Bush: Stop Labeling Schools
(From Anthony Cody's blog entry, Educators Flunk the School Grading System in Indiana.)
Donna Roof: Time to Bring Back the Joy of Learning
I am a public school teacher. I am a breast cancer survivor. I dreamed as a little girl of the day I would be a teacher. I never dreamed as a woman that I would one day be a cancer survivor. So now I am both and proud that I am.
I speak to you today as both, for you see there are times these days that being an educator is more challenging, more stressful, more worrisome, more exhausting than being a cancer patient/survivor. I never ever in my wildest imagination dreamed that I would one day be in a fight for my life. I also never ever dreamed I’d be in the fight of a lifetime to save my students’ joy of learning, my public schools, my profession.
I didn’t just wake up one day, and my lump was there. It had been there all along, undetected. The same holds true for what is happening to public education. The education reform movement has been there all along, too, mostly undetected. But now, it has metastasized at unparalleled speed and is no longer hidden.
I have seen how my having cancer affects those around me. I have seen and, sadly, continue to see how the siphoning off of public funds from public schools, an A-F grade system to label schools, and more and more testing affect my students, my colleagues, my district, my neighborhood, my community, my city. Nevertheless, we persevere and succeed because that’s what public schools do.
The lessons learned as a cancer patient/survivor are plentiful. Perhaps the most important lesson is that I learned not to let the cancer define who I am. In the same manner I will not allow all that is happening in education define who I am as a teacher although I know there are those who like to paint me with their brush of pejoratives like union thug and status quo.
I know what kind of teacher I am, for I hold that belief in my heart, and there is no way to measure that. Teaching is much more than my career; it is my passion. Everyday I enter my classroom believing I am a master teacher, for if I didn’t hold true to that claim, I shouldn’t be there.
Even more importantly, I refuse to let all that is happening in education define my students, my school, my district, my community, my city. My students have so much potential. My students’ lives are more complicated than I can ever begin to imagine. They overcome seemingly insurmountable obstacles and are successful because they meet their challenges. If you could see my students, you would know what I mean. They are so much more than data points. They are unique individuals with dreams and goals. I so want them to dare “to color outside the lines” and not just simply bubble in a test circle. I welcome any politician or state board member to come to my classroom—not for a photo op but to teach.
My physicians saved my life and brought back my joy of living. It is time to save the life of public education and bring back the joy of learning. Give all students equal educational opportunities. Our future and our democracy depend on public schools. As Martin Luther King, Jr. once stated, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
Phyllis Bush: Stop Labeling Schools
We all know that labels are important; in fact, as consumers, we demand truth in labeling. However, when it comes to labeling our children, that is indeed another story.
Let me give you an example. When I first moved to Fort Wayne in the 1970s, South Side High School was a storied old school, heavily laden with tradition and with a great amount of community pride. By the time I began teaching at South Side in the late 1970s, the neighborhood was beginning to change, and the area was rapidly being viewed as "an inner city school." Despite being in an area of high poverty, a sense of community, of family, and of tradition was alive and well at our school. However, even back then, whenever some horrific news event happened on the south side of town--whether it was a car accident, a shooting, or a robbery--the media was always quick to display the stately old columns of the South Side facade as the backdrop for the story.
At that time many of my students were so incensed by seeing the reputation of their alma mater besmirched by the association of the image of South Side High School with criminal activity that they indignantly wrote letters of protest to the newspapers, and I proudly posted their letters on my bulletin board. Recently I was reminded of this when a shooting occurred on the south side of town. When I turned on the news that evening, I was once again greeted with an image of the South Side facade as a backdrop even though there was no connection between the school and the crime. Interestingly enough, I was heartened to see that former students of mine were once again expressing their outrage (but this time on Facebook) at having the school which they loved labeled in such an unfair manner.
On a similar note, even though the A-F bipartisan panel has done an excellent job of wrestling with the difficult question of how to measure student growth against fixed standards, there are still fatal flaws in this system which determines winners and losers among schools, teachers, and students. While I know that the A-F Accountability letter grade rating system is now a part of Indiana state law, I am still bothered by the labeling of schools, of students, of teachers, and of neighborhoods.
All of this leads me to ask this question. Why in the world do we need another label to decide what the quality of a school is? Do we really want to punish and reward schools and teachers according to demographics?
Interestingly enough, a few weeks ago Indiana Senator Dennis Kruse (chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Education) expressed his concern about testing at the Faith and Politics Forum here in Fort Wayne; he said that he never really liked either the A-F Grading System or the ISTEP tests. So, let me get this straight: if the chairman of the Education Select Committee is skeptical of these measurements, shouldn't the State Board and the General Assembly consider slowing down this process or at the very least consider creating a pilot program to study the effects of these programs?
Having said all of the above, do we really want a system which measures dubious data? Of course, we can change it and rearrange it, but such a system leaves much to be desired. We can slap a fresh coat of paint on a broken down car, and the car still won't run, or in the words of the philosopher, Sarah Palin: "You can put lipstick on a pig, and it is still a pig."
Rather than making a seriously flawed system only marginally less so, why not ask teachers and community members what they think makes a successful school? Why not measure the qualities that we value rather than meaningless numbers that can be quantified.
Vic’s Statehouse Notes #160 – November 14, 2013
Dear Friends,
The battle for control of education policy in Indiana was on full display at the end of yesterday’s State Board meeting. A motion to move up the public hearings on Common Core standards to January instead of February and to empower the State Board staff in the Governor’s office to run the hearings was ruled “improper” by Superintendent Ritz.
Board members would not accept her ruling and would not move on to the next agenda item, making numerous comments perhaps summarized when Board Member David Freitas loudly said: “You are not the Attorney General. No chair can stop us from voting.” Superintendent Ritz again called for the next agenda item, but when two more volunteered comments on the Common Core issue, she announced “This meeting is adjourned.”
I have watched nearly all State Board meetings since 1997, and I can tell you that I have never witnessed a meeting like what I saw yesterday. The battle for control of education in Indiana is now in full view. Ironically, the conflict surfaced on the same day that the Indianapolis Star featured in its banner headline the struggle between Governor Pence and Superintendent Ritz for control of education policy.
A Negotiated Agreement on the A-F Panel Report
The end of the meeting was surprising in light of the fact that what I had thought would be the most difficult issue of the day had already been settled. HEA 1427 said that “Not later than November 15, 2013, the state board shall establish new categories or designations of school performance under the requirements of this chapter to replace 511 IAC 6.2-6.“ In light of this language and with specific rules still in development, Superintendent Ritz brought a motion to the meeting as follows:
“The State Board of Education adopts the Accountability System Review Panel's recommendations,
establishing new accountability categories.
The State Board of Education further recognizes that a validation and statistical analysis process may lead to follow up recommendations to the formulas that support the categories as they are built and validated through the beta testing period of the new model design."
State Board Member Brad Oliver moved that the first sentence be changed to read: “… recommendations for new accountability categories.” He also moved that the second sentence be changed to read “will lead” instead of “may lead”.
It appeared consensus was forming on these two changes. Board Member Gordon Hendry then recommended that the meeting take a break while State Board staff meet with Superintendent Ritz to work out final language. Board Member Dan Elsener asked for language about the role of the Board’s staff. He said there should be “no confusion about Board staff involvement.” Superintendent Ritz agreed to a break and said the meeting would resume at 10:00am.
About 10:15, she brought the meeting back to order and announced that additional language had been added that she agreed with, along with a final sentence that she did not agree with: “Board staff and Department staff will collaborate with technical experts about the work of the Panel and ultimately the Board.” She wanted the motion to reference only the Panel and its work rather than the staff, but she said she had agreed to put the issue before the board. Board Member Oliver amended his motion to include the final sentence and the other additional language, and the vote was taken. The motion passed 9-1, with Superintendent Ritz voting for the motion despite having a sentence she opposed. Andrea Neal voted no after explaining her belief that the federal government controls education and the College Board determines the curriculum.
With that vote, which included a compromise by Superintendent Ritz regarding involvement by the State Board staff, the State Board can say that the General Assembly’s November 15th deadline was met.
Common Core Timeline Changes
After reports were given about Common Core review committees on English/Language Arts and Math, Brad Oliver presented his concerns and a motion about the timetable for the Common Core review and the need for quicker Higher Education review and more State Board control in the process.
I recommend that you see for yourself what happened next to draw your own conclusions. Go to the State Board of Education section of the IDOE website to see the video of the meeting and to get the full picture of what my notes outline below. I took notes as fast as possible, but of course I could not capture a full transcript.
My conclusion is that Superintendent Ritz ruled the motion improper because it empowered the State Board staff to do tasks that state law explicitly assigns to the Department. To stop further erosion of her Department’s authority, she declared the motion improper and tried to move on to the next agenda item. The board members vigorously objected and refused to move on. Superintendent Ritz declared a recess to end the discussion, but that didn’t work. After the recess, the same controversy broke out again on the same topic. At that point, Superintendent Ritz announced that the meeting would adjourn.
Here are the details from the notes I was taking as fast as I could write:
The Proposed Motion
The first change requested by Brad Oliver was that the public hearings on the Common Core standards be completed by January 31st. Currently, the timetable calls for public hearings in February. Superintendent Ritz expressed concern that January hearings would mean that the final recommendations of how to change the math and E/LA standards would not be available for the public to comment on, which was the main point in holding public hearings in February after the review panels make their recommendations.
Secondly, the motion put the State Board staff in charge of the public hearings and the standards review. Superintendent Ritz objected vigorously to this part of the motion, reading from state statutes that “the Department shall develop” and review standards for approval first by the Roundtable and then by the State Board. She said that by state law it is not the State Board’s role or the State Board’s staff role to develop standards and therefore she would rule the motion improper because it “inserts the board’s staff to oversee the process.”
Dan Elsener asked to hear from the State Board’s attorney on this matter. Superintendent Ritz did not recognize the attorney to speak.
Cari Wicker said “You have your attorney. Why can’t I ask my attorney?”
Superintendent Ritz said, “I am taking this to the Attorney General.” She said that the Department has the obligation to review standards and that there need not be a “back and forth debate.”
Board Attorney Michelle Goff then rose and started speaking. Superintendent Ritz said, “Michelle, please sit down.”
She sat down.
Superintendent Ritz then called for a “quick recess” until 12:05.
After the recess, she reiterated that the motion was improper and she would ask for an advisory opinion from the Attorney General.
Brad Oliver expressed his disappointment and explained his concern about “getting standards right.”
Superintendent Ritz said she is ruling the motion improper and is ready to move the next agenda item.
Gordon Hendry then called “point of order.” He proposed amending the motion to make it subject to the Attorney General’s review. He said this would move the process forward.
Superintendent Ritz said, “I am ruling the motion improper.”
Dan Elsener then said, “This is bad leadership. We wouldn’t do something illegal. We have a motion and a second. That is not the proper role of the chair.”
David Freitas said, “Let the Board speak. Can we call for a vote? You are not the Attorney General. No chair can stop us from voting.”
Superintendent Ritz called for the next item on the agenda, listed as “Common Core Guidance to Schools.”
State Board Attorney Michelle Goff then rose to say that meeting procedures negotiated with the Governor’s office don’t allow the Superintendent to rule a motion to be improper.
Dan Elsener said, “You can’t behave like this.”
Superintendent Ritz said, “This meeting is adjourned.” It was 12:15. She stood up and left the room. Her staff left the room. All nine of the Board members remained in the room.
The video staff started tearing down the technical equipment. David Freitas asked the technician to keep the video equipment rolling, a step noticeable only because the technician declined in a loud response.
The Meeting Sans Chair
About 12:20, Board Secretary Dan Elsener convened the Board members, saying that “we have a motion and a second.”
Brad Oliver asked who has the authority to set policy if the chair has left. He expressed concern about the risk of perceptions. He said we should keep “decorum at a high level.”
B.J. Watts, Dan Elsener, David Freitas and Cari Wicker all made comments. Board Attorney Michelle Goff recommended taking a recess to check procedures with the Attorney General to “make sure what we are doing is appropriate.” It was 12:25.
At 12:30, Board Secretary Dan Elsener reconvened the group, saying “We have to make a decision: vote on the motion or adjourn.”
Brad Oliver said we should not vote without approval from the Attorney General.
B.J. Watts said we should agree to disagree.
Cari Wicker said we have put politics aside. This is not a political issue.
B.J. Watts said no one could have been more respectful than Brad Oliver in preparing his motion.
Gordon Hendry said he was deeply disappointed, especially after the Board had found common ground to pass the A-F motion.
Claire Fidian Green told the group that procedures say that an emergency meeting can be called by the chair or by two members of the Board.
David Freitas asked to vote on the motion.
At this point, Brad Oliver withdrew his motion, saying we should be “respectful” and “take the high road.”
Dan Elsener then asked for a motion to adjourn, which was made by Gordon Hendry. It was 12:40.
Perhaps now you will want to see the video to check this scene out for yourself.
The Choice for Indiana: The Big Picture
Through all the give and take, the conflicting educational philosophies of Superintendent Ritz and Governor Pence have never been clearer. Gerald Bracey called them “Dueling Visions” in his 2003 book entitled What You Should Know about the War Against America’s Public Schools.
Governor Pence wants a competitive marketplace of schools fueled by private school vouchers and school choice. This will slowly diminish public education and upgrade private schools with taxpayer money.
Superintendent Ritz wants to focus public money on public schools to bring equity and high quality to every public school. This will upgrade public education and counter the shift toward privatization.
Indiana’s direction in this arena has been the educational policy question of our generation. A strong turn toward privatization was made in 2011, giving state money to private school vouchers for the first time in 160 years. The Governor has a strong team to continue expanding what was started in 2011.
To say that education should not be political is disingenuous. Both sides have deeply held political positions which go to the heart of our democracy and our economy. In a democracy, the voters must set the direction.
In this generational struggle between strongly held visions, I stand with Glenda Ritz along with 1.3 million voters who put her in office. I am an advocate for public education, and I oppose privatization.
My neighbor greeted me as I got in the car to come to yesterday’s meeting, saying she thinks voters didn’t really realize how much Governor Pence could control education by appointing the State Board. Now they know. The Center for Education and Career Innovation, home of the State Board staff with a $5 million budget, was created by an executive order of the Governor without any legislative debate.
The battle for control is now in full view. At yesterday’s meeting, the visions were truly dueling.
Thanks for your support and actions on behalf of public education!
Best wishes,
Vic Smith
ICPE is working to promote public education and oppose the privatization of schools in the Statehouse. We thank all who came to the three membership meeting this fall in Indianapolis, Lafayette and Bloomington. They were all excellent discussions! Many renewed their memberships at the meetings. If you have not done so since July 1, the start of our new membership year, we urge you to renew by going to our website.
We need additional support to carry on our advocacy for public education. We need additional members and additional donations. We need your help!
Go to www.icpe2011.com for membership and renewal information and for full information on our three ICPE membership meetings this fall. Thanks!
Some readers have asked about my background in Indiana public schools. Thanks for asking! Here is a brief bio:
I am a lifelong Hoosier and began teaching in 1969. I served as a social studies teacher, curriculum developer, state research and evaluation consultant, state social studies consultant, district social studies supervisor, assistant principal, principal, educational association staff member, and adjunct university professor. I worked for Garrett-Keyser-Butler Schools, the Indiana University Social Studies Development Center, the Indiana Department of Education, the Indianapolis Public Schools, IUPUI, and the Indiana Urban Schools Association, from which I retired as Associate Director in 2009. I hold three degrees: B.A. in Ed., Ball State University, 1969; M.S. in Ed., Indiana University, 1972; and Ed.D., Indiana University, 1977, along with a Teacher’s Life License and a Superintendent’s License, 1998.
The battle for control of education policy in Indiana was on full display at the end of yesterday’s State Board meeting. A motion to move up the public hearings on Common Core standards to January instead of February and to empower the State Board staff in the Governor’s office to run the hearings was ruled “improper” by Superintendent Ritz.
Board members would not accept her ruling and would not move on to the next agenda item, making numerous comments perhaps summarized when Board Member David Freitas loudly said: “You are not the Attorney General. No chair can stop us from voting.” Superintendent Ritz again called for the next agenda item, but when two more volunteered comments on the Common Core issue, she announced “This meeting is adjourned.”
I have watched nearly all State Board meetings since 1997, and I can tell you that I have never witnessed a meeting like what I saw yesterday. The battle for control of education in Indiana is now in full view. Ironically, the conflict surfaced on the same day that the Indianapolis Star featured in its banner headline the struggle between Governor Pence and Superintendent Ritz for control of education policy.
A Negotiated Agreement on the A-F Panel Report
The end of the meeting was surprising in light of the fact that what I had thought would be the most difficult issue of the day had already been settled. HEA 1427 said that “Not later than November 15, 2013, the state board shall establish new categories or designations of school performance under the requirements of this chapter to replace 511 IAC 6.2-6.“ In light of this language and with specific rules still in development, Superintendent Ritz brought a motion to the meeting as follows:
“The State Board of Education adopts the Accountability System Review Panel's recommendations,
establishing new accountability categories.
The State Board of Education further recognizes that a validation and statistical analysis process may lead to follow up recommendations to the formulas that support the categories as they are built and validated through the beta testing period of the new model design."
State Board Member Brad Oliver moved that the first sentence be changed to read: “… recommendations for new accountability categories.” He also moved that the second sentence be changed to read “will lead” instead of “may lead”.
It appeared consensus was forming on these two changes. Board Member Gordon Hendry then recommended that the meeting take a break while State Board staff meet with Superintendent Ritz to work out final language. Board Member Dan Elsener asked for language about the role of the Board’s staff. He said there should be “no confusion about Board staff involvement.” Superintendent Ritz agreed to a break and said the meeting would resume at 10:00am.
About 10:15, she brought the meeting back to order and announced that additional language had been added that she agreed with, along with a final sentence that she did not agree with: “Board staff and Department staff will collaborate with technical experts about the work of the Panel and ultimately the Board.” She wanted the motion to reference only the Panel and its work rather than the staff, but she said she had agreed to put the issue before the board. Board Member Oliver amended his motion to include the final sentence and the other additional language, and the vote was taken. The motion passed 9-1, with Superintendent Ritz voting for the motion despite having a sentence she opposed. Andrea Neal voted no after explaining her belief that the federal government controls education and the College Board determines the curriculum.
With that vote, which included a compromise by Superintendent Ritz regarding involvement by the State Board staff, the State Board can say that the General Assembly’s November 15th deadline was met.
Common Core Timeline Changes
After reports were given about Common Core review committees on English/Language Arts and Math, Brad Oliver presented his concerns and a motion about the timetable for the Common Core review and the need for quicker Higher Education review and more State Board control in the process.
I recommend that you see for yourself what happened next to draw your own conclusions. Go to the State Board of Education section of the IDOE website to see the video of the meeting and to get the full picture of what my notes outline below. I took notes as fast as possible, but of course I could not capture a full transcript.
My conclusion is that Superintendent Ritz ruled the motion improper because it empowered the State Board staff to do tasks that state law explicitly assigns to the Department. To stop further erosion of her Department’s authority, she declared the motion improper and tried to move on to the next agenda item. The board members vigorously objected and refused to move on. Superintendent Ritz declared a recess to end the discussion, but that didn’t work. After the recess, the same controversy broke out again on the same topic. At that point, Superintendent Ritz announced that the meeting would adjourn.
Here are the details from the notes I was taking as fast as I could write:
The Proposed Motion
The first change requested by Brad Oliver was that the public hearings on the Common Core standards be completed by January 31st. Currently, the timetable calls for public hearings in February. Superintendent Ritz expressed concern that January hearings would mean that the final recommendations of how to change the math and E/LA standards would not be available for the public to comment on, which was the main point in holding public hearings in February after the review panels make their recommendations.
Secondly, the motion put the State Board staff in charge of the public hearings and the standards review. Superintendent Ritz objected vigorously to this part of the motion, reading from state statutes that “the Department shall develop” and review standards for approval first by the Roundtable and then by the State Board. She said that by state law it is not the State Board’s role or the State Board’s staff role to develop standards and therefore she would rule the motion improper because it “inserts the board’s staff to oversee the process.”
Dan Elsener asked to hear from the State Board’s attorney on this matter. Superintendent Ritz did not recognize the attorney to speak.
Cari Wicker said “You have your attorney. Why can’t I ask my attorney?”
Superintendent Ritz said, “I am taking this to the Attorney General.” She said that the Department has the obligation to review standards and that there need not be a “back and forth debate.”
Board Attorney Michelle Goff then rose and started speaking. Superintendent Ritz said, “Michelle, please sit down.”
She sat down.
Superintendent Ritz then called for a “quick recess” until 12:05.
After the recess, she reiterated that the motion was improper and she would ask for an advisory opinion from the Attorney General.
Brad Oliver expressed his disappointment and explained his concern about “getting standards right.”
Superintendent Ritz said she is ruling the motion improper and is ready to move the next agenda item.
Gordon Hendry then called “point of order.” He proposed amending the motion to make it subject to the Attorney General’s review. He said this would move the process forward.
Superintendent Ritz said, “I am ruling the motion improper.”
Dan Elsener then said, “This is bad leadership. We wouldn’t do something illegal. We have a motion and a second. That is not the proper role of the chair.”
David Freitas said, “Let the Board speak. Can we call for a vote? You are not the Attorney General. No chair can stop us from voting.”
Superintendent Ritz called for the next item on the agenda, listed as “Common Core Guidance to Schools.”
State Board Attorney Michelle Goff then rose to say that meeting procedures negotiated with the Governor’s office don’t allow the Superintendent to rule a motion to be improper.
Dan Elsener said, “You can’t behave like this.”
Superintendent Ritz said, “This meeting is adjourned.” It was 12:15. She stood up and left the room. Her staff left the room. All nine of the Board members remained in the room.
The video staff started tearing down the technical equipment. David Freitas asked the technician to keep the video equipment rolling, a step noticeable only because the technician declined in a loud response.
The Meeting Sans Chair
About 12:20, Board Secretary Dan Elsener convened the Board members, saying that “we have a motion and a second.”
Brad Oliver asked who has the authority to set policy if the chair has left. He expressed concern about the risk of perceptions. He said we should keep “decorum at a high level.”
B.J. Watts, Dan Elsener, David Freitas and Cari Wicker all made comments. Board Attorney Michelle Goff recommended taking a recess to check procedures with the Attorney General to “make sure what we are doing is appropriate.” It was 12:25.
At 12:30, Board Secretary Dan Elsener reconvened the group, saying “We have to make a decision: vote on the motion or adjourn.”
Brad Oliver said we should not vote without approval from the Attorney General.
B.J. Watts said we should agree to disagree.
Cari Wicker said we have put politics aside. This is not a political issue.
B.J. Watts said no one could have been more respectful than Brad Oliver in preparing his motion.
Gordon Hendry said he was deeply disappointed, especially after the Board had found common ground to pass the A-F motion.
Claire Fidian Green told the group that procedures say that an emergency meeting can be called by the chair or by two members of the Board.
David Freitas asked to vote on the motion.
At this point, Brad Oliver withdrew his motion, saying we should be “respectful” and “take the high road.”
Dan Elsener then asked for a motion to adjourn, which was made by Gordon Hendry. It was 12:40.
Perhaps now you will want to see the video to check this scene out for yourself.
The Choice for Indiana: The Big Picture
Through all the give and take, the conflicting educational philosophies of Superintendent Ritz and Governor Pence have never been clearer. Gerald Bracey called them “Dueling Visions” in his 2003 book entitled What You Should Know about the War Against America’s Public Schools.
Governor Pence wants a competitive marketplace of schools fueled by private school vouchers and school choice. This will slowly diminish public education and upgrade private schools with taxpayer money.
Superintendent Ritz wants to focus public money on public schools to bring equity and high quality to every public school. This will upgrade public education and counter the shift toward privatization.
Indiana’s direction in this arena has been the educational policy question of our generation. A strong turn toward privatization was made in 2011, giving state money to private school vouchers for the first time in 160 years. The Governor has a strong team to continue expanding what was started in 2011.
To say that education should not be political is disingenuous. Both sides have deeply held political positions which go to the heart of our democracy and our economy. In a democracy, the voters must set the direction.
In this generational struggle between strongly held visions, I stand with Glenda Ritz along with 1.3 million voters who put her in office. I am an advocate for public education, and I oppose privatization.
My neighbor greeted me as I got in the car to come to yesterday’s meeting, saying she thinks voters didn’t really realize how much Governor Pence could control education by appointing the State Board. Now they know. The Center for Education and Career Innovation, home of the State Board staff with a $5 million budget, was created by an executive order of the Governor without any legislative debate.
The battle for control is now in full view. At yesterday’s meeting, the visions were truly dueling.
Thanks for your support and actions on behalf of public education!
Best wishes,
Vic Smith
ICPE is working to promote public education and oppose the privatization of schools in the Statehouse. We thank all who came to the three membership meeting this fall in Indianapolis, Lafayette and Bloomington. They were all excellent discussions! Many renewed their memberships at the meetings. If you have not done so since July 1, the start of our new membership year, we urge you to renew by going to our website.
We need additional support to carry on our advocacy for public education. We need additional members and additional donations. We need your help!
Go to www.icpe2011.com for membership and renewal information and for full information on our three ICPE membership meetings this fall. Thanks!
Some readers have asked about my background in Indiana public schools. Thanks for asking! Here is a brief bio:
I am a lifelong Hoosier and began teaching in 1969. I served as a social studies teacher, curriculum developer, state research and evaluation consultant, state social studies consultant, district social studies supervisor, assistant principal, principal, educational association staff member, and adjunct university professor. I worked for Garrett-Keyser-Butler Schools, the Indiana University Social Studies Development Center, the Indiana Department of Education, the Indianapolis Public Schools, IUPUI, and the Indiana Urban Schools Association, from which I retired as Associate Director in 2009. I hold three degrees: B.A. in Ed., Ball State University, 1969; M.S. in Ed., Indiana University, 1972; and Ed.D., Indiana University, 1977, along with a Teacher’s Life License and a Superintendent’s License, 1998.
###
Vic’s Statehouse Notes #159 – November 11, 2013
Dear Friends,
At the November 8th State Board meeting, the plan for school letter grades from the bipartisan panel was presented by co-chairs State Superintendent Glenda Ritz and Southwest Allen Superintendent Steve Yager. The panel did a good job of wrestling with the difficult question of how to measure student growth against fixed standards without resorting to peer comparisons, the fatal flaw of the current system. The panel has proposed two measures of growth: categorical growth and targeted growth.
According to the report given Friday, the definition of the targeted growth concept is still in development. Derek Redelman of the Indiana Chamber of Commerce told me that the unfinished portions of the plan led him to cast his vote against approval of the plan, which the panel approved by a vote of 16-1. Below are the details of the two growth measures and my proposal for completing the definition of targeted growth.
Categorical Growth
Categorical growth divides the domains of “Did Not Pass”, “Pass”, and “Pass+” into levels and then gives credit to students for achieving a higher level from Year 1 to Year 2. In this way, schools can get credit for strong improvement by students who have still not reached the “Pass” mark. Alternately, schools can be penalized when those not passing fall even further from the pass line.
The example in the report came from Alaska. Currently Indiana has set scale scores that define “Pass” and “Pass+”. Based on the Alaska example, Indiana would divide the portion of students below the pass line into three groups: “Did Not Pass 1”, “Did Not Pass 2”, “Did Not Pass 3”, with “Did Not Pass 1” being the lowest scoring students. Presumably, the additional cut scores would be set by mathematically trisecting the current range of scale scores below the pass line.
Next the scale scores between “Pass” and “Pass+” would be bisected to create “Pass 1” and “Pass 2” levels, with “Pass 1” defined as the low pass level and “Pass 2” defined as the high pass level.
Finally, the “Pass+” scale scores would be trisected to create levels called “Pass+ 1”, “Pass+ 2”, and “Pass+ 3”, with “Pass+ 1” as the lowest level of the Pass+ students.
This creates a system of eight categories. Points would be given to every student based on their movement up or down in these eight categories from Year 1 to Year 2. Points are based on the idea that if a student passes the test one year (Pass 1) and then passes again at the same level the next year (Pass 1), they would get 100 points. If they do better and move to a higher category, they get more points. If they do worse and move down, they get fewer points. The points table used in Alaska was included in the panel’s report.
This system is commendable for being completely criterion-referenced, with no hint of peer comparisons or quotas. If a student does better, they will get more points. If a student does worse, they will get fewer points. All students could potentially get more points.
Targeted Growth: Still in Development
Targeted growth was defined in the panel’s report as “the minimum growth expected for an individual student, as measured by performance on two consecutive assessments.” The importance of the phrase “growth to proficiency” comes into play here. The panel report referred to the slope of the line from a student’s score in Year 1 to the proficiency line stretched out over, for example, a three year period, indicating that the student is on target to pass in three years.
According to the report on Friday, the panel is still working to define the minimum growth expected for each student. When they define it, they plan to report the percentage of students with scores for two years who have met targeted growth.
Targeted Growth – A Proposal
After reflecting on the incomplete development of this targeted growth metric as reported on Friday, I offer this proposal to complete the task. I do this in hopes that members of the panel will read these notes and that this is the quickest way to share these ideas with the panel and others working to finalize a criterion-referenced measure of growth. The proposed answer to the problem comes in three parts:
There it is, a proposal offered to advance the discussion of targeted growth. It is important for the State Board to speed the final development of the new rules to replace the current discredited system, which sadly is still being used to grade schools. Public release of new letter grades is now scheduled for mid to late December.
Quick Action Would Help
A speedy rollout of the proposed new system would promote a correction of the biggest flaw I see in the panel’s report. They have called for use of this new system for 2014-15 student data, giving us yet another year of the flawed current system for 2013-14 data.
That delay is not appropriate. The General Assembly asked for a new system effective November 15, 2013, not two years from now. Testing of the panel’s new system, if finalized soon, could clearly be checked and rechecked using the 2012-13 data that is just now available. Testing out the new metrics now for a full year using current data should get all the kinks out to use it next fall for 2013-14.
The State Board will address these and other matters in an extra meeting on Nov. 13th at 8:00am.
Public Comments
Indiana must move on from the flawed current A-F system to end the damage it is doing. I addressed the problems of the current system in public comments to the State Board at the Nov. 8th meeting. I have attached these comments for those interested describing the shortcomings of the A-F system we are still suffering under.
I hope you will send comments you have about the A-F system to the Panel members and to State Board members. Thanks for your support and actions on behalf of public education!
Best wishes,
Vic Smith
ICPE is working to promote public education and oppose the privatization of schools in the Statehouse. We thank all who came to the three membership meeting this fall in Indianapolis, Lafayette and Bloomington. They were all excellent discussions! Many renewed their memberships at the meetings. If you have not done so since July 1, the start of our new membership year, we urge you to renew by going to our website.
We need additional support to carry on our advocacy for public education. We need additional members and additional donations. We need your help!
Go to www.icpe2011.com for membership and renewal information and for full information on our three ICPE membership meetings this fall. Thanks!
Some readers have asked about my background in Indiana public schools. Thanks for asking! Here is a brief bio:
I am a lifelong Hoosier and began teaching in 1969. I served as a social studies teacher, curriculum developer, state research and evaluation consultant, state social studies consultant, district social studies supervisor, assistant principal, principal, educational association staff member, and adjunct university professor. I worked for Garrett-Keyser-Butler Schools, the Indiana University Social Studies Development Center, the Indiana Department of Education, the Indianapolis Public Schools, IUPUI, and the Indiana Urban Schools Association, from which I retired as Associate Director in 2009. I hold three degrees: B.A. in Ed., Ball State University, 1969; M.S. in Ed., Indiana University, 1972; and Ed.D., Indiana University, 1977, along with a Teacher’s Life License and a Superintendent’s License, 1998.
At the November 8th State Board meeting, the plan for school letter grades from the bipartisan panel was presented by co-chairs State Superintendent Glenda Ritz and Southwest Allen Superintendent Steve Yager. The panel did a good job of wrestling with the difficult question of how to measure student growth against fixed standards without resorting to peer comparisons, the fatal flaw of the current system. The panel has proposed two measures of growth: categorical growth and targeted growth.
According to the report given Friday, the definition of the targeted growth concept is still in development. Derek Redelman of the Indiana Chamber of Commerce told me that the unfinished portions of the plan led him to cast his vote against approval of the plan, which the panel approved by a vote of 16-1. Below are the details of the two growth measures and my proposal for completing the definition of targeted growth.
Categorical Growth
Categorical growth divides the domains of “Did Not Pass”, “Pass”, and “Pass+” into levels and then gives credit to students for achieving a higher level from Year 1 to Year 2. In this way, schools can get credit for strong improvement by students who have still not reached the “Pass” mark. Alternately, schools can be penalized when those not passing fall even further from the pass line.
The example in the report came from Alaska. Currently Indiana has set scale scores that define “Pass” and “Pass+”. Based on the Alaska example, Indiana would divide the portion of students below the pass line into three groups: “Did Not Pass 1”, “Did Not Pass 2”, “Did Not Pass 3”, with “Did Not Pass 1” being the lowest scoring students. Presumably, the additional cut scores would be set by mathematically trisecting the current range of scale scores below the pass line.
Next the scale scores between “Pass” and “Pass+” would be bisected to create “Pass 1” and “Pass 2” levels, with “Pass 1” defined as the low pass level and “Pass 2” defined as the high pass level.
Finally, the “Pass+” scale scores would be trisected to create levels called “Pass+ 1”, “Pass+ 2”, and “Pass+ 3”, with “Pass+ 1” as the lowest level of the Pass+ students.
This creates a system of eight categories. Points would be given to every student based on their movement up or down in these eight categories from Year 1 to Year 2. Points are based on the idea that if a student passes the test one year (Pass 1) and then passes again at the same level the next year (Pass 1), they would get 100 points. If they do better and move to a higher category, they get more points. If they do worse and move down, they get fewer points. The points table used in Alaska was included in the panel’s report.
This system is commendable for being completely criterion-referenced, with no hint of peer comparisons or quotas. If a student does better, they will get more points. If a student does worse, they will get fewer points. All students could potentially get more points.
Targeted Growth: Still in Development
Targeted growth was defined in the panel’s report as “the minimum growth expected for an individual student, as measured by performance on two consecutive assessments.” The importance of the phrase “growth to proficiency” comes into play here. The panel report referred to the slope of the line from a student’s score in Year 1 to the proficiency line stretched out over, for example, a three year period, indicating that the student is on target to pass in three years.
According to the report on Friday, the panel is still working to define the minimum growth expected for each student. When they define it, they plan to report the percentage of students with scores for two years who have met targeted growth.
Targeted Growth – A Proposal
After reflecting on the incomplete development of this targeted growth metric as reported on Friday, I offer this proposal to complete the task. I do this in hopes that members of the panel will read these notes and that this is the quickest way to share these ideas with the panel and others working to finalize a criterion-referenced measure of growth. The proposed answer to the problem comes in three parts:
1) What Should Be the Targeted Growth for Students Below the Pass Line?This makes sense for general education students who have fallen behind. For special education students who have a cognitive disability, there is no evidence that a steady catch-up pace can be expected.
This part is clear. For these students, the fixed target for growth should be the pass line. The presumption is that growth is expected for the student to reach the pass line in three years. A trajectory line between the student’s initial score and the passing score three years out will determine the targeted growth expected each year.
2) What Should Be the Targeted Growth for Students Above the Pass Line but Below Pass+?This group should be expected to continue to grow at least the same level. If a student scores two scale scores above the pass line in Year 1, normal growth would mean that the student would also score two scale points above the pass line in Year 2. That would be the expected growth. There is no need for a three-year trajectory line with this group.
3) What Should Be the Targeted Growth for Students Above the Pass+ Line?Students above the Pass+ line have achieved very well and should be expected to stay in Pass+. It would be unfair, however, to penalize a student and a school if a student scores 10 points above the pass+ line in Year 1 but only 9 points above the pass+ line in Year 2. Growth to stay in Pass+ should be sufficient to define targeted growth for Pass+ students each year. Again, there is no need here for slopes or trajectories.
There it is, a proposal offered to advance the discussion of targeted growth. It is important for the State Board to speed the final development of the new rules to replace the current discredited system, which sadly is still being used to grade schools. Public release of new letter grades is now scheduled for mid to late December.
Quick Action Would Help
A speedy rollout of the proposed new system would promote a correction of the biggest flaw I see in the panel’s report. They have called for use of this new system for 2014-15 student data, giving us yet another year of the flawed current system for 2013-14 data.
That delay is not appropriate. The General Assembly asked for a new system effective November 15, 2013, not two years from now. Testing of the panel’s new system, if finalized soon, could clearly be checked and rechecked using the 2012-13 data that is just now available. Testing out the new metrics now for a full year using current data should get all the kinks out to use it next fall for 2013-14.
The State Board will address these and other matters in an extra meeting on Nov. 13th at 8:00am.
Public Comments
Indiana must move on from the flawed current A-F system to end the damage it is doing. I addressed the problems of the current system in public comments to the State Board at the Nov. 8th meeting. I have attached these comments for those interested describing the shortcomings of the A-F system we are still suffering under.
I hope you will send comments you have about the A-F system to the Panel members and to State Board members. Thanks for your support and actions on behalf of public education!
Best wishes,
Vic Smith
ICPE is working to promote public education and oppose the privatization of schools in the Statehouse. We thank all who came to the three membership meeting this fall in Indianapolis, Lafayette and Bloomington. They were all excellent discussions! Many renewed their memberships at the meetings. If you have not done so since July 1, the start of our new membership year, we urge you to renew by going to our website.
We need additional support to carry on our advocacy for public education. We need additional members and additional donations. We need your help!
Go to www.icpe2011.com for membership and renewal information and for full information on our three ICPE membership meetings this fall. Thanks!
Some readers have asked about my background in Indiana public schools. Thanks for asking! Here is a brief bio:
I am a lifelong Hoosier and began teaching in 1969. I served as a social studies teacher, curriculum developer, state research and evaluation consultant, state social studies consultant, district social studies supervisor, assistant principal, principal, educational association staff member, and adjunct university professor. I worked for Garrett-Keyser-Butler Schools, the Indiana University Social Studies Development Center, the Indiana Department of Education, the Indianapolis Public Schools, IUPUI, and the Indiana Urban Schools Association, from which I retired as Associate Director in 2009. I hold three degrees: B.A. in Ed., Ball State University, 1969; M.S. in Ed., Indiana University, 1972; and Ed.D., Indiana University, 1977, along with a Teacher’s Life License and a Superintendent’s License, 1998.
###
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)