Dear Friends,
At yesterday’s Senate Education Committee meeting, Sen. Kruse announced that no vote would be taken on the voucher expansion bill, SB 184. Channel 13 had a report that Sen. Kruse was planning to hold the bill indefinitely.
At Tuesday’s House Education Committee meeting, the bill saying that a superintendent of schools should not be required to hold a teacher’s license or a superintendent’s license, House Bill 1357, passed the committee on a party line vote.
Senate Education Committee – January 30, 2013
Success in the legislative process is never assessed until the session adjourns. Many concepts once thought dead have been revived in other bills, especially in the budget bill which will mostly take shape in April. Given that caution, the news about expanding vouchers in Senate Bill 184 is good news for public school advocates. Chairman Kruse is holding the bill. It remains to be seen whether he will decide to resurrect it.
Certainly your letters, calls and emails against SB 184 have made a difference and will continue to make a difference. As you contact Senators, keep speaking up against SB 184. The most visible opponent of the concept of expanding vouchers to make more students eligible and adding new fiscal costs to the state has been Senator Kenley. He certainly deserves notes of thanks for taking a strong position.
The Senate Education Committee then passed SB 465 (Indiana works councils) by an 8-0 vote. Senator Kruse announced that SB 330 (School accreditation) heard on Jan. 23rd and SB 345 (Use of restraints and seclusion in schools) heard on Jan. 30th would be voted on in two weeks. He said the meeting on Feb. 13th would be devoted to higher education bills. Hearings were also held on SB 352 (School policies on gang activities), SB 418 (Financial literacy instruction) and SB 364 (Education funding for children in residential care). SB 193 (Common core) which was never scheduled for a vote after the Jan. 16th hearing was not mentioned.
House Education Committee – January 29, 2013 and January 31, 2013
Tuesday morning’s debate in the House Education Committee on HB 1357 which would remove the need for a superintendent to have a teacher’s license or a superintendent’s license encapsulated the current generational debate on standards and deregulation.
Rep. Huston presented this bill as an effort to let each local school board “hire who they believe is best” to be superintendent. He said we shouldn’t “tie their hands about how far they can cast the net.” Rep. Arnold asked if some educational levels needed to be added to the bill since by taking away licensing requirements, a local board could hire under this law a high school drop out to be superintendent. Rep. Huston responded that each board could determine the education level that a superintendent needed and that if a local board made a “poor decision” that they would surely be “defeated in the next election.” Rep. Thompson held up Glenda Ritz as an example of someone who could serve as a local superintendent who doesn’t have a superintendent’s license. Rep. Arnold called this bill “a good free-market plan.”
On the opposing side, Rep. Smith, who trains school administrators at IU-Northwest, registered strong objections. He said this would dilute the profession and that more training, not less, is needed now that teacher and principal evaluations have been given more weight under recent legislation. Rep. Vandenburgh asked “Don’t we set the standards for the state?” She said that those who had never been a teacher could never understand the school sufficiently to lead as superintendent.
In public testimony, opposition was expressed by John Barnes (IDOE), Sally Sloan (IFT), Chuck Little (IUSA), Steve Gookins (IAPSS), John O’Neil (ISTA) and me. My testimony can be found HERE for those who want more details. I strongly opposed the bill, focusing on the history of this issue when licensing superintendents was a reform to end cronyism and nepotism in local school administration.
Derek Redelman (Indiana Chamber) was the only member of the public to testify in favor of the bill.
In the vote, all nine Republicans agreed that a superintendent of schools should not be required to hold a teacher’s license or a superintendent’s license, and all four Democrats disagreed.
In the same meeting, House Bill 1341 (Electronic transcripts) passed 13-0.
In the meeting today, January 31st, House Bill 1443 (Teacher Loan Repayment) was heard but no vote will be taken until an amendment is prepared for next Tuesday’s meeting, February 5th. A major bill on charter schools --House Bill 1338 -- will also be heard on Tuesday. The meeting will begin at 8:30am.
Thanks for your support of public education!
Best wishes,
Vic Smith
ICPE is working to promote public education in the Statehouse. We are well represented by our lobbyist Joel Hand, but to keep him in place we need all members from last year to renew and we need new members who support public education.
Go to www.icpe2011.com for membership and renewal information.
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, January 31, 2013
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
BillWatch
Follow BillWatch: Indiana Legislation Tracker to keep up on legislation in the Indiana General Assembly.
http://www.in.gov/apps/lsa/session/billwatch/
BillWatch is free again this year! No subscription or monthly fee is required to track legislation.Click the link below to begin.
Stay informed on bills and/or resolutions scheduled for action on the House and Senate floors with BillWatch.
Track up to 10 bills at a time.
Receive daily e-mail notifications.
E-mail notifications are sent once per day if action is taken on tracked bills and/or resolutions as updates are made to the Legislative Services Agency database. If no action is taken, e-mail notification will not be sent.
http://www.in.gov/apps/lsa/session/billwatch/
Monday, January 28, 2013
Vic’s Statehouse Notes #108– January 28, 2013
Dear Friends,
At 1:30pm today, Rep. Behning posted plans to have hearings on a controversial bill tomorrow morning at 8:30am in the House Education Committee in Room 156C. Every retired superintendent in Indiana would probably like to come to speak against the bill.
House Bill 1357 – School Administrators
House Bill 1357 sponsored by Rep. Huston provides that a superintendent of schools is not required to hold a teacher’s or superintendent’s license.
We are back to the question of whether non-educators should be superintendents.
We have had earlier rounds on this controversy. The REPA 1 (2010) and REPA 2 (2012) licensing changes both addressed allowing non-educators to be superintendents, and vigorous battles ensued. As it stands now after these two Tony Bennett-era controversies, a non-educator can get a license to be superintendent at the request of a local school board who wants to hire that person as a superintendent. The license is good for as long as that local board wishes.
Apparently, that is not good enough for Rep. Huston and others who want to declare in our Indiana Code that superintendents do not need teaching experience or special training to be a superintendent. Most teachers and principals who will be evaluated by that superintendent beg to differ. They would rather be evaluated by someone who has walked in their shoes and knows what it takes to run a classroom or a school.
We are backtracking on our own history here, just as our national leaders did in the late 1990’s when they repealed the 1930’s banking reforms and then saw our banking system nearly collapse in 2008. Licensing for superintendents was created in the first half of the 20th century to solve the problems of cronyism and nepotism in local school leadership. Through licensing, professionally trained administrators could be identified who could pass the standards of non-partisan university programs. Do we really want to throw all that out and let local board choose whoever they favor, regardless of their knowledge of education?
Currently, superintendents take courses in school law, school finance, curriculum, assessment, and the history of education which are vital in day-to-day decisions as well as in developing the perspective for wise long-term policies in the district. To say that a bright person can learn these things on the job without experience in the classroom is lowering standards and reversing the long road Indiana has traveled to having professionally trained school leaders.
Passing this bill would devalue the licenses of all who have earned a superintendent license through conscientious study. Allowing this change is an invitation to a generation of poorly trained leaders and the problems they can create.
House Bill 1427 – Various Education Matters
Three other bills are scheduled for tomorrow’s hearing: House Bill 1364 (Intimidation or torment of a school employee), House Bill 1341 (Standard transcripts and college applications), and House Bill 1427 (Various Education Matters).
House Bill 1427 is a laundry list of programs that Dr. Bennett wanted to delete from Indiana Code in the 2012 session, supported in testimony by Dale Chu. The bill failed on the closing day of the session. Now it is back, still in my estimation proposing at least two controversial deletions:
Chairman: Representative Behning
Republican Members: Representatives Rhoads, Arnold, Burton, Clere, DeVon, Huston, Lucas, and Thompson
Democrat Members: Representatives Vernon Smith, Battles, Errington and VanDenburgh
Thanks for your efforts on behalf of public education!
Best wishes,
Vic Smith
ICPE is working to promote public education in the Statehouse. We are well represented by our lobbyist Joel Hand, but to keep him in place we need all members from last year to renew and we need new members who support public education.
Go to www.icpe2011.com for membership and renewal information.
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 1:30pm today, Rep. Behning posted plans to have hearings on a controversial bill tomorrow morning at 8:30am in the House Education Committee in Room 156C. Every retired superintendent in Indiana would probably like to come to speak against the bill.
House Bill 1357 – School Administrators
House Bill 1357 sponsored by Rep. Huston provides that a superintendent of schools is not required to hold a teacher’s or superintendent’s license.
We are back to the question of whether non-educators should be superintendents.
We have had earlier rounds on this controversy. The REPA 1 (2010) and REPA 2 (2012) licensing changes both addressed allowing non-educators to be superintendents, and vigorous battles ensued. As it stands now after these two Tony Bennett-era controversies, a non-educator can get a license to be superintendent at the request of a local school board who wants to hire that person as a superintendent. The license is good for as long as that local board wishes.
Apparently, that is not good enough for Rep. Huston and others who want to declare in our Indiana Code that superintendents do not need teaching experience or special training to be a superintendent. Most teachers and principals who will be evaluated by that superintendent beg to differ. They would rather be evaluated by someone who has walked in their shoes and knows what it takes to run a classroom or a school.
We are backtracking on our own history here, just as our national leaders did in the late 1990’s when they repealed the 1930’s banking reforms and then saw our banking system nearly collapse in 2008. Licensing for superintendents was created in the first half of the 20th century to solve the problems of cronyism and nepotism in local school leadership. Through licensing, professionally trained administrators could be identified who could pass the standards of non-partisan university programs. Do we really want to throw all that out and let local board choose whoever they favor, regardless of their knowledge of education?
Currently, superintendents take courses in school law, school finance, curriculum, assessment, and the history of education which are vital in day-to-day decisions as well as in developing the perspective for wise long-term policies in the district. To say that a bright person can learn these things on the job without experience in the classroom is lowering standards and reversing the long road Indiana has traveled to having professionally trained school leaders.
Passing this bill would devalue the licenses of all who have earned a superintendent license through conscientious study. Allowing this change is an invitation to a generation of poorly trained leaders and the problems they can create.
House Bill 1427 – Various Education Matters
Three other bills are scheduled for tomorrow’s hearing: House Bill 1364 (Intimidation or torment of a school employee), House Bill 1341 (Standard transcripts and college applications), and House Bill 1427 (Various Education Matters).
House Bill 1427 is a laundry list of programs that Dr. Bennett wanted to delete from Indiana Code in the 2012 session, supported in testimony by Dale Chu. The bill failed on the closing day of the session. Now it is back, still in my estimation proposing at least two controversial deletions:
- It would delete the highly popular Indiana Principals Leadership Academy from Indiana law. This training program for principals began during State Superintendent Evans A+ program and ran well for over 20 years until Dr. Bennett, who disliked the program, killed it by having its funding taken away. Now that Dr. Bennett is no longer there, I thought Glenda Ritz might resurrect it since the law is still on the books, but this bill would finish killing it if it is enacted.
- It would delete the law calling for a state health curriculum and a state health consultant. Dr. Bennett, who focused narrowly on reading and math tests, didn’t want a state health consultant, but we still have an obesity crisis and many health concerns among our student population. I thought health education might be resurrected by Glenda Ritz, but this bill would take away the health education requirement in Indiana Code.
Chairman: Representative Behning
Republican Members: Representatives Rhoads, Arnold, Burton, Clere, DeVon, Huston, Lucas, and Thompson
Democrat Members: Representatives Vernon Smith, Battles, Errington and VanDenburgh
Thanks for your efforts on behalf of public education!
Best wishes,
Vic Smith
ICPE is working to promote public education in the Statehouse. We are well represented by our lobbyist Joel Hand, but to keep him in place we need all members from last year to renew and we need new members who support public education.
Go to www.icpe2011.com for membership and renewal information.
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.
Hoosier Voices Covers Legislature
Hoosier Voices for Public Education has a page with information about current bills in the state legislature.
They provide links to current bills along with their analysis and opinions on the pros and cons of bills.
Be sure to check them out. We'll keep a link to their blog and legislative information page in the menu bar at the right. Look in the sections titled INDIANA VOICES and PUBLIC EDUCATION ADVOCACY LINKS.
They provide links to current bills along with their analysis and opinions on the pros and cons of bills.
Be sure to check them out. We'll keep a link to their blog and legislative information page in the menu bar at the right. Look in the sections titled INDIANA VOICES and PUBLIC EDUCATION ADVOCACY LINKS.
Saturday, January 26, 2013
Education Talk
Standards – Curriculum
What does it mean?
More and more of us have become tuned in to the new laws (and bills) proposed and passed during the Mitch Daniels/Tony Bennett administrations. Our new governor and our new superintendent of public instruction have both indicated that changes in education will be in the forefront of their agendas.
Pedagogy – “Art or profession of teaching,” this term is used frequently during discussions to mean preparation in child development and instructional methods.
Teacher Certification – This is an official state recognition that a person meets state standards and is qualified to be a teacher in Indiana.
Adjunct Teaching Permit – One of the newest bills posed by the State Board of Education allows people without a teacher certification to teach in an Indiana public school. They will be issued an “adjunct teaching permit”.
Common Core Standards (CCSS) – These national school standards state the knowledge and skills that all students are expected to learn in their K-12 education to prepare them for entering college and/or career training. These standards will be fully implemented with children tested beginning in the 2014-2015 school year. The Education Roundtable and the State Board of Education in Indiana approved these standards in August 2010, but the legislature is now reconsidering staying aligned to them.
State Standards – These were composed by the Indiana Department of Education and are statements of what students should know and be able to demonstrate. These standards are considered to be more rigorous than the standards of most other states. They cover grades K-12 and all subject areas, and are used to define the knowledge students are expected to acquire.
Assessments – An assessment is a measurement of what students have learned. ISTEP, I-Read, and ECA are assessments that align with the standards that are now in place. New standards mean new assessments (or tests). Implementing the Common Core State Standards will mean developing new assessments. All tests fit into the school grading system and have an impact on teacher evaluations.
Charter Schools – These publicly-funded schools are an alternative to traditional public schools. Charter Schools are exempt from many state laws and regulations. Many Charter Schools are run by for-profit companies.
Vouchers – These tuition credits are used by parents to pay for their child’s education in a private school of their choice. Students in these schools are required to take state tests.
Watch this blog for more terms and explanations about “testing” and “literacy.”
Feel free to share this information.
Click HERE for an alphabetized list of terms included in all the Education Talk postings.
What does it mean?
More and more of us have become tuned in to the new laws (and bills) proposed and passed during the Mitch Daniels/Tony Bennett administrations. Our new governor and our new superintendent of public instruction have both indicated that changes in education will be in the forefront of their agendas.
Pedagogy – “Art or profession of teaching,” this term is used frequently during discussions to mean preparation in child development and instructional methods.
Teacher Certification – This is an official state recognition that a person meets state standards and is qualified to be a teacher in Indiana.
Adjunct Teaching Permit – One of the newest bills posed by the State Board of Education allows people without a teacher certification to teach in an Indiana public school. They will be issued an “adjunct teaching permit”.
Common Core Standards (CCSS) – These national school standards state the knowledge and skills that all students are expected to learn in their K-12 education to prepare them for entering college and/or career training. These standards will be fully implemented with children tested beginning in the 2014-2015 school year. The Education Roundtable and the State Board of Education in Indiana approved these standards in August 2010, but the legislature is now reconsidering staying aligned to them.
State Standards – These were composed by the Indiana Department of Education and are statements of what students should know and be able to demonstrate. These standards are considered to be more rigorous than the standards of most other states. They cover grades K-12 and all subject areas, and are used to define the knowledge students are expected to acquire.
Assessments – An assessment is a measurement of what students have learned. ISTEP, I-Read, and ECA are assessments that align with the standards that are now in place. New standards mean new assessments (or tests). Implementing the Common Core State Standards will mean developing new assessments. All tests fit into the school grading system and have an impact on teacher evaluations.
Charter Schools – These publicly-funded schools are an alternative to traditional public schools. Charter Schools are exempt from many state laws and regulations. Many Charter Schools are run by for-profit companies.
Vouchers – These tuition credits are used by parents to pay for their child’s education in a private school of their choice. Students in these schools are required to take state tests.
Watch this blog for more terms and explanations about “testing” and “literacy.”
Feel free to share this information.
Click HERE for an alphabetized list of terms included in all the Education Talk postings.
Friday, January 25, 2013
January 25, 2013: Question of the Day
TODAY'S QUESTION: Much has been written about the Common Core State Standards. What are your thoughts?
Click the question mark below to see all our Questions of the Day or click the link in the sidebar.
~~~
Click the question mark below to see all our Questions of the Day or click the link in the sidebar.
~~~
Vic’s Statehouse Notes #107– January 25, 2013
Dear Friends,
Once again, Senator Kruse announced in Wednesday’s Senate Education Committee meeting that the vote on the voucher expansion bill (Senate Bill 184) would be delayed for a week (until Jan. 30th) at the request of the sponsor, Senator Yoder. This provides more time at “Third House” meetings this Saturday and through emails and phone calls to let legislators hear how public school advocates deeply oppose this bill.
It is indeed unusual for a committee vote on any bill to be delayed for two weeks. I can’t remember a similar delay since Senator Kruse became chair of the committee. Without having any inside knowledge, the delayed vote is a clear indication that the sponsor is still looking for enough support for the bill to pass out of the committee.
Fiscal Cost
This is not the time to let down on contacting Senators. While Governor Pence supported voucher expansion in his State of the State address last Tuesday, many Senators are concerned about the fiscal cost. According to the non-partisan Legislative Services Agency fiscal note on SB 184, the first year of the voucher program moved $15.6 million from public school tuition to private school tuition and the second year diverted $35.9 million. Most of that taxpayer money was going to pay for religious educations. Only 6 of the 289 private schools accepting vouchers are non-religious, non-sectarian schools.
Now with SB 184, a whole new element is proposed: Giving vouchers to students who have never been in public schools, ending the “vouchers save dollars” policy and adding a new fiscal cost to taxpayers. Some students would become eligible for a voucher who have been in private schools for years. It is one more step on the road to a universal voucher, the ultimate goal of voucher proponents, a goal that would eventually undermine and marginalize the non-partisan, non-sectarian public schools that for over a hundred years have brought people from all walks of life together in our communities and have undergirded our democracy with citizenship education and our economy with college and career readiness.
Public education advocates know what is at stake here and should keep up the drumbeat to oppose any expansion of vouchers. The media have casually speculated that voucher expansion would easily pass in this General Assembly, but then the media also speculated that Tony Bennett would defeat Glenda Ritz.
Contact Senators
Let’s go to work one more week to defeat Senate Bill 184, starting with Saturday’s “Third House” and “Crackerbarrel” meetings with legislators in your county.
Again, the Senators on the committee to contact are as follows:
Chair: Sen. Kruse
Republican Members: Senators Yoder, Banks, Buck, Kenley, Pete Miller, Leising and Schneider
Democrat Members: Senators Rogers, Broden, Mrvan, Taylor
Keep up the good work for public education!
Best wishes,
Vic Smith
ICPE is working to promote public education in the Statehouse as efforts are made this week to expand vouchers. We are well represented by our lobbyist Joel Hand, but to keep him in place we need all members from last year to renew and we need new members who support public education.
Go to www.icpe2011.com for membership and renewal information.
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.
Once again, Senator Kruse announced in Wednesday’s Senate Education Committee meeting that the vote on the voucher expansion bill (Senate Bill 184) would be delayed for a week (until Jan. 30th) at the request of the sponsor, Senator Yoder. This provides more time at “Third House” meetings this Saturday and through emails and phone calls to let legislators hear how public school advocates deeply oppose this bill.
It is indeed unusual for a committee vote on any bill to be delayed for two weeks. I can’t remember a similar delay since Senator Kruse became chair of the committee. Without having any inside knowledge, the delayed vote is a clear indication that the sponsor is still looking for enough support for the bill to pass out of the committee.
Fiscal Cost
This is not the time to let down on contacting Senators. While Governor Pence supported voucher expansion in his State of the State address last Tuesday, many Senators are concerned about the fiscal cost. According to the non-partisan Legislative Services Agency fiscal note on SB 184, the first year of the voucher program moved $15.6 million from public school tuition to private school tuition and the second year diverted $35.9 million. Most of that taxpayer money was going to pay for religious educations. Only 6 of the 289 private schools accepting vouchers are non-religious, non-sectarian schools.
Now with SB 184, a whole new element is proposed: Giving vouchers to students who have never been in public schools, ending the “vouchers save dollars” policy and adding a new fiscal cost to taxpayers. Some students would become eligible for a voucher who have been in private schools for years. It is one more step on the road to a universal voucher, the ultimate goal of voucher proponents, a goal that would eventually undermine and marginalize the non-partisan, non-sectarian public schools that for over a hundred years have brought people from all walks of life together in our communities and have undergirded our democracy with citizenship education and our economy with college and career readiness.
Public education advocates know what is at stake here and should keep up the drumbeat to oppose any expansion of vouchers. The media have casually speculated that voucher expansion would easily pass in this General Assembly, but then the media also speculated that Tony Bennett would defeat Glenda Ritz.
Contact Senators
Let’s go to work one more week to defeat Senate Bill 184, starting with Saturday’s “Third House” and “Crackerbarrel” meetings with legislators in your county.
Again, the Senators on the committee to contact are as follows:
Chair: Sen. Kruse
Republican Members: Senators Yoder, Banks, Buck, Kenley, Pete Miller, Leising and Schneider
Democrat Members: Senators Rogers, Broden, Mrvan, Taylor
Keep up the good work for public education!
Best wishes,
Vic Smith
ICPE is working to promote public education in the Statehouse as efforts are made this week to expand vouchers. We are well represented by our lobbyist Joel Hand, but to keep him in place we need all members from last year to renew and we need new members who support public education.
Go to www.icpe2011.com for membership and renewal information.
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, January 24, 2013
Letters to Legislators
Cathy Fuentes-Rohwer over at Indiana Coalition for Public Education--Monroe County and South Central Indiana (ICPE-MCSCI) has a post today with sample letters to state legislators. She also gives a concise review of ALEC's participation in 1) the privatization of public education and the 2) deprofessionalization of teachers.
You can use our blog resources to contact Indiana House and Indiana Senate members.
You can use our blog resources to contact Indiana House and Indiana Senate members.
Her letter to Representative Behning (Chair of the House Education Committee), included in the post, Let's Play Whack-a-Mole...And WIN! follows. Check out the original post for other examples. Great work Cathy!!
Dear Rep. Behning,
I am writing to you because I am greatly concerned about a number of house bills that have come to my attention. I know that you are intimately familiar with them as you have authored (?) or sponsored two of them: HB1309 and HB1342. House Bill 1251 is also of great concern to me; allow me to explain why.
I recognize that you invested both time and maybe even money in the movement to privatize education. I see from your record that you are a strong member of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and that you were state chairman of ALEC for 8 years. It doesn't come as a surprise to me as I've noticed that the policies you follow in education align themselves completely with ALEC's vision of a system of education in which competition is the driving force and free markets reign supreme. I contemplate whether you truly believe this is best for children or whether you are only concerned with the few who will benefit. Perhaps you are discovering that this is a huge money-maker. You see, I've become cynical in recent years and you'll have to forgive me for that. I don't believe that schools run as businesses will ever put children first. It is antithetical to their purpose: a business is for profit, schools are a service for children.
As you know, ALEC and the corporations backing your organization have received a lot of press this past year. The shooting of Trayvon Martin exposed the many ways that ALEC can impose business interests and control aspects of our democracy at the peril of our citizens. The very act of wooing legislators, giving them model legislation and having this pass as law, is undemocratic in itself. What happened to representation of your constituency? And this brings me to my main point.
Glenda Ritz won. She won fair and square and against all the odds reflected in campaign finance studies (he who has the biggest coffers wins). She ran on a platform dedicated to education and she received even more votes than Governor Pence. That speaks volumes to her support. I would think that with this strong backing, your efforts to diminish her power and marginalize her position would be a very risky venture for you. When voters are made aware that you are trying to create a state school board made up of your own party (no longer requiring that there be no more than 6 of a party) and made up of non-educators (no longer requiring that there be employees of schools with teaching licenses) --HB1251--, I think that they will be very unhappy with you as their representative. Furthermore, when they discover that HB1309 creates a new position (vice chairman) for the board who would act in Ritz's stead and have an unusual amount of power over agendas, meetings,etc (HB1309) as well as ensuring a "majority" at the Education Roundtable (all appointed by the governor), I think that your constituents will stop and wonder why you would blatantly disregard their will/votes.
ALEC believes that corporations are people who can influence legislators to pass laws that benefit them. But I think most of America's citizens believe that legislators should represent the people who voted for them. This is, after all, the idea of a democracy. I hope that if you believe in our country and a democracy, that you will also believe in Indiana's constitution which gives every child a right to a free public education or "common school." If you can't get behind a system of public education, I would hope that you would get behind the idea that you are elected to represent the people. In this case, the people overwhelmingly voted for Glenda Ritz. Allow her to do her job.
Thanks for your time.
Cathy Fuentes-Rohwer
Sunday, January 20, 2013
Random Thoughts...
Glenda Ritz and Phyllis Bush, January 19, 2013
by Phyllis Bush.
After attending yesterday's inauguration of Glenda Ritz as Superintendent of Public Instruction, a number of thoughts crossed my mind. The atmosphere was uplifting and positive, and I was especially impressed by the the focus on kids. When we entered the Rotunda, we were first greeted by Girl Scouts, and then we could hear some beautiful tunes being played by a saxophonist. As I read the program, much to my surprise, I saw that the musician was Bryan Thompson, a sophomore from Broad Ripple Magnet High School. There were also musical selections played by the IPS Perry Meridian High School String Quartet. The colors were presented by the JROTC Unit from IPS Pike High School. That was followed by singers from Broad Ripple High School.
After the ceremony was finished, there was a reception where people could visit the Superintendent's office and could congratulate Glenda Ritz. Her office was light, bright, and welcoming....and once again, the focus was on students, on literacy, and on learning.
After all of the years of negative attacks on public schools, and more especially on IPS schools, the choice of having so many students involved in this ceremony sent a strong message.
The more that I thought about this ceremony and about the overwhelming victory that Ms. Ritz achieved in November, I was struck by the fact that her victory over impossible odds has given hope to many of us who have been so discouraged by the negative and punitive nature that has emanated from the IDOE while Tony Bennett was in office. While, of course, Superintendent Ritz cannot change the sun, the moon, the stars, and the rain--let alone a hostile legislature, whose members are doing their best to marginalize her--her inauguration set a positive tone for what she wants to accomplish. To a great extent, she has become of a symbol of what might be. However, if we are to be realistic, she cannot do this alone. It is up to those of us who believe that the survival of public education is our last best hope for the kind of world we want. It is up to us to write letters, to send e-mails, to make phone calls, to inform and engage others to remind our super-majority legislature that we care about what happens to our kids.
Thursday, January 17, 2013
Vic’s Statehouse Notes #106– January 17, 2013
Dear Friends,
Yesterday’s committee vote on Senate Bill 184, the voucher expansion bill, was delayed until next Wednesday’s meeting. This gives us all more time to send additional messages of opposition before the vote.
Voucher Expansion
Senator Kruse announced at the beginning of yesterday’s Senate Education Committee meeting that the vote on SB 184, the voucher expansion bill, as well as on two other bills would be taken at the January 23rd meeting. The only bill voted on as scheduled was Senate Bill 189, which was passed 9-0 with bipartisan support after being amended.
I have no inside information about SB 184, but sometimes bills are delayed in this manner because the sponsor doesn’t have the votes lined up to pass the bill and wants more time to try to find the votes. Whether this is true in the case of the sibling voucher bill is up to speculation, but the net result is that the bill still has not passed the committee and public school advocates have until January 23rd to reach more Senators, especially those on the Education Committee, to share your deep opposition to sending more public money to private schools through an expansion of vouchers for siblings. In many legislative districts, this weekend will be the first “Third House” or “Crackerbarrel” meetings in which legislators meet with constituents back home. I hope public school advocates will show up at such meetings with the message that public schools need more support and supporting private schools with more vouchers is the wrong priority. Go to it!
Common Core
Senator Kruse then turned yesterday to a hearing on SB 193, the Common Core bill, subject of two rallies and much debate prior to the hearing. Many of us in fighting the voucher bill in 2011 argued that private schools should not want vouchers because the strings that come with public dollars will take away the independence of private schools. That is exactly what has happened in this case and should prompt a reassessment of the full consequences of the voucher law.
As I listened to the story of how the fight against the Common Core began in Indiana, I learned that private school independence has already been corrupted by the voucher program. Senator Schneider, in introducing his bill to take Indiana out of the Common Core program, described how two parents in his district came to him greatly concerned that their voucher-accepting parochial school was changing its textbooks and curriculum to comply with the Common Core curriculum and the new assessments to come, since voucher schools must take the state assessments. These parents were greatly distressed by the changes they traced back to the Common Core curriculum, especially in math, and thus, a movement to overturn the 2010 decision of the Roundtable and the State Board was born.
Without the voucher program requirement that schools accepting vouchers must take the state tests, the private school could have ignored the Common Core and used textbooks and tests that fit its preferred curriculum. Now this huge public policy debate with national implications is being driven by private and parochial school parents and the outcome will impact every public and private school in Indiana. The voucher law has thus entwined public and private schools in an unanticipated way through the Common Core curriculum battle.
The hearing, which Senator Kruse noted began at 1:37, went on until 7:00pm last night. The Senate Chamber and gallery were standing room only and some 50 chairs were filled in the hallway outside the Senate Chamber. The vote on SB 193 is scheduled for the next meeting, January 23rd.
House Education Committee
The first meeting of the House Education Committee was held this morning at 8:30am. House Bill 1012 amending the law governing the transfer of surplus buildings to charter schools was passed 12 to 1. The bill reduces the four year waiting period to sell a building to two years and includes a 30-day fast track procedure when a ready buyer is available. House Bill 1060 amending the law governing criminal background checks on teacher applicants was passed 12 to 0.
Chairman Behning announced that House Bills 1005, a complex bill regarding high school remediation, and 1295 regarding the IU School of Public Health would be given hearings at the next meeting on Tuesday, January 22nd. The new schedule for the House Education Committee is to meet every Tuesday and Thursday from 8:30 until the House convenes around 10:30.
Contact Senators
Senators need to hear again this week from the grassroots about Senate Bill 184. Please let them know of your opposition to expanding the voucher program in a way that will for the first time add new and expensive fiscal costs to the program. Other voucher bills have been announced, and strong resistance to this first one, SB 184, will help us fight the others down the road. The Senators on the committee to contact are as follows:
Chair: Sen. Kruse
Republican Members: Senators Yoder, Banks, Buck, Kenley, Pete Miller, Leising and Schneider
Democrat Members: Senators Rogers, Broden, Mrvan, Taylor
Thanks for all you are doing to support public education!
Best wishes,
Vic Smith
ICPE is working to promote public education in the Statehouse as efforts are made this week to expand vouchers. We are well represented by our lobbyist Joel Hand, but to keep him in place we need all members from last year to renew and we need new members who support public education.
Go to www.icpe2011.com for membership and renewal information.
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.
Yesterday’s committee vote on Senate Bill 184, the voucher expansion bill, was delayed until next Wednesday’s meeting. This gives us all more time to send additional messages of opposition before the vote.
Voucher Expansion
Senator Kruse announced at the beginning of yesterday’s Senate Education Committee meeting that the vote on SB 184, the voucher expansion bill, as well as on two other bills would be taken at the January 23rd meeting. The only bill voted on as scheduled was Senate Bill 189, which was passed 9-0 with bipartisan support after being amended.
I have no inside information about SB 184, but sometimes bills are delayed in this manner because the sponsor doesn’t have the votes lined up to pass the bill and wants more time to try to find the votes. Whether this is true in the case of the sibling voucher bill is up to speculation, but the net result is that the bill still has not passed the committee and public school advocates have until January 23rd to reach more Senators, especially those on the Education Committee, to share your deep opposition to sending more public money to private schools through an expansion of vouchers for siblings. In many legislative districts, this weekend will be the first “Third House” or “Crackerbarrel” meetings in which legislators meet with constituents back home. I hope public school advocates will show up at such meetings with the message that public schools need more support and supporting private schools with more vouchers is the wrong priority. Go to it!
Common Core
Senator Kruse then turned yesterday to a hearing on SB 193, the Common Core bill, subject of two rallies and much debate prior to the hearing. Many of us in fighting the voucher bill in 2011 argued that private schools should not want vouchers because the strings that come with public dollars will take away the independence of private schools. That is exactly what has happened in this case and should prompt a reassessment of the full consequences of the voucher law.
As I listened to the story of how the fight against the Common Core began in Indiana, I learned that private school independence has already been corrupted by the voucher program. Senator Schneider, in introducing his bill to take Indiana out of the Common Core program, described how two parents in his district came to him greatly concerned that their voucher-accepting parochial school was changing its textbooks and curriculum to comply with the Common Core curriculum and the new assessments to come, since voucher schools must take the state assessments. These parents were greatly distressed by the changes they traced back to the Common Core curriculum, especially in math, and thus, a movement to overturn the 2010 decision of the Roundtable and the State Board was born.
Without the voucher program requirement that schools accepting vouchers must take the state tests, the private school could have ignored the Common Core and used textbooks and tests that fit its preferred curriculum. Now this huge public policy debate with national implications is being driven by private and parochial school parents and the outcome will impact every public and private school in Indiana. The voucher law has thus entwined public and private schools in an unanticipated way through the Common Core curriculum battle.
The hearing, which Senator Kruse noted began at 1:37, went on until 7:00pm last night. The Senate Chamber and gallery were standing room only and some 50 chairs were filled in the hallway outside the Senate Chamber. The vote on SB 193 is scheduled for the next meeting, January 23rd.
House Education Committee
The first meeting of the House Education Committee was held this morning at 8:30am. House Bill 1012 amending the law governing the transfer of surplus buildings to charter schools was passed 12 to 1. The bill reduces the four year waiting period to sell a building to two years and includes a 30-day fast track procedure when a ready buyer is available. House Bill 1060 amending the law governing criminal background checks on teacher applicants was passed 12 to 0.
Chairman Behning announced that House Bills 1005, a complex bill regarding high school remediation, and 1295 regarding the IU School of Public Health would be given hearings at the next meeting on Tuesday, January 22nd. The new schedule for the House Education Committee is to meet every Tuesday and Thursday from 8:30 until the House convenes around 10:30.
Contact Senators
Senators need to hear again this week from the grassroots about Senate Bill 184. Please let them know of your opposition to expanding the voucher program in a way that will for the first time add new and expensive fiscal costs to the program. Other voucher bills have been announced, and strong resistance to this first one, SB 184, will help us fight the others down the road. The Senators on the committee to contact are as follows:
Chair: Sen. Kruse
Republican Members: Senators Yoder, Banks, Buck, Kenley, Pete Miller, Leising and Schneider
Democrat Members: Senators Rogers, Broden, Mrvan, Taylor
Thanks for all you are doing to support public education!
Best wishes,
Vic Smith
ICPE is working to promote public education in the Statehouse as efforts are made this week to expand vouchers. We are well represented by our lobbyist Joel Hand, but to keep him in place we need all members from last year to renew and we need new members who support public education.
Go to www.icpe2011.com for membership and renewal information.
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.
Monday, January 14, 2013
Vic’s Statehouse Notes #105– January 14, 2013
Dear Friends,
The Senate Education Committee will vote on the voucher expansion bill, Senate Bill 184, on Wednesday afternoon, Jan. 16th. Please contact the Senators on the committee before the vote to express your
opposition.
The hearing on Senate Bill 184 sponsored by Senator Yoder revealed a division within the committee. Even before public testimony on the bill began, Senator Kenley expressed his continued support of the position the Senate took when the voucher bill was passed, that is, that students should try public schools first. Eligibility for vouchers required a year in public schools for that reason. Then if students move to a private school, there is a cost savings. Under Senate Bill 184, the cost savings disappear when siblings who have not been in public schools receive a voucher and a new fiscal cost must be funded in the budget.
Senator Kenley, as quoted in Scott Elliott’s story in the January 12th Star, said it well: “We passed the original bill on the assumption that you go to public school first. This changes the premise. It’s a pretty fundamental change.”
Fiscal Cost for Indiana Taxpayers
Scott Elliott’s story also quoted the testimony of ICPE lobbyist Joel Hand citing the extra fiscal costs that a sibling voucher expansion would bring: “Based on the $3932 average voucher, he said, if just one in 10 of the 9,130 students in the program had a sibling not in public school who used a voucher next year it would cost Indiana about $3.5 million annually. If a quarter of the students had a sibling who used a voucher it would cost Indiana nearly $9 million a year.”
The extra fiscal cost in the millions of dollars is clear and substantial, in a state that in the last budget zeroed out state funding for professional development, which in the previous budget was given $5.5 million a year. Is helping private school parents pay tuition a higher priority than professional development?
Financial Relief for Private School Parents
Keep in mind that the biggest impact of SB 184 would be financial relief for private school parents. With the exception of incoming kindergarten and first graders, it would allow no new students to go to a private school. The older students covered by this bill are already in private schools.
Instead for all older siblings, this bill is about giving financial relief to the parents of current private school students, parents who happen to have another younger child who has qualified for a voucher.
Giving a voucher to an older sibling who is already in a private school does nothing to expand school choice. The choice was already made. Now this bill helps parents pay for their previous choice with your tax money.
Giving financial relief to parents of private school students would be a generous thing for the state to do, but other parents would wonder why they aren’t being favored by the state with financial relief as well. Public school parents have been asking for financial relief for school textbook rental for over a decade. Why, they should ask, are private school parents getting relief when we are not?
Testimony on the Bill
In public testimony on Senate Bill 184 last Wednesday, five speakers spoke in favor of the bill followed by eight speaking against the bill. Karen Combs of Lafayette in her testimony against the bill gave a timely reminder to the Senators that Gov. Daniels himself in a speech given at Harvard explained to his audience how Indiana did it right by having families go to public school first before they are eligible for a voucher.
No additional testimony will be taken, but the committee vote on SB 184 is scheduled for this Wednesday, January 16th in the Senate Chamber, along with votes on three other bills, including the cursive writing bill. Then the rest of the afternoon is scheduled for testimony on SB 193, the Common Core bill. Apparently a large crowd is expected which accounts for scheduling the hearing in the Senate Chamber.
As of Monday evening, no meeting has yet been scheduled for the House Education Committee.
Contact the Committee Members
It is time to contact Senators on the committee on Tuesday and Wednesday before the vote to express your opposition to expanding the voucher program in a way that will for the first time add new and expensive fiscal costs to the program. That this bill was taken up first in the session shows the wrong priority. The Senators to contact are as follows:
Chair: Sen. Kruse
Republican Members: Senators Yoder, Banks, Buck, Kenley, Pete Miller, Leising and Schneider
Democrat Members: Senators Rogers, Broden, Mrvan, Taylor
You should also add your own Senator to the contact list. If you made contacts last week, it would not hurt to send another email or note before the vote. They need to know that public school advocates are watching every step of the way. One strong advocate opposing Senate Bill 184, Patricia Logan, had an excellent letter to the editor printed in the Indianapolis Star just this morning, January 14th. Thanks, Trish! Let’s all turn up the volume!
Thank you for speaking up for public education!
Vic Smith vic790@aol.com
ICPE is working to promote public education in the Statehouse as efforts are made to take public money away from public schools through an expansion of vouchers. We are well represented by our lobbyist Joel Hand, but to keep him in place we need all members from last year to renew and we need new members who support public education.
Go to www.icpe2011.com for membership and renewal information.
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.
Friday, January 11, 2013
Senator Introduces Parent Trigger Bill
Indiana State Senator Kruse apparently doesn't think that the state encouraging public school closings and charter openings is enough. He wants to get help in privatizing public schools from parents, teachers and school boards. State Impact (NPR) reported...
Time to contact your state senators and let them know where you stand on SB341. Just say NO!
The chair of the Indiana Senate’s Education Committee calls it “the smorgasbord menu of options for school reorganization.”Kruse seems to be working from the ALEC playbook...their "Parent Trigger" bill is a model for those who are working for the privatization of American public education.
As part of a bill overhauling Indiana’s current “parent trigger” law, Sen. Dennis Kruse, R-Auburn, proposes giving parents, teachers or local school boards new powers to intervene in schools that have received at least three straight F’s from the state.
The legislation he filed Tuesday empowers any one of these groups to petition to either close a struggling school, transfer its students to schools with higher test scores or reorganize it as a charter school.
...Under Kruse’s proposal, a majority vote from the school board, petition signatures from 51 percent of a school’s parents or petition signatures from 75 percent of a school’s teachers would trigger one of four possible interventions:
...Kruse says parents or teachers filing parent trigger petitions could negotiate with school leaders to include measures short of reorganizing.
- Close the school and transfer students to schools with higher test scores within the district
- Turn the public school into a charter school
- Transfer any students who wanted to leave to another district
- “Any combination” of the above options (although it’s not quite clear what would constitute a “combination” of those options).
“Some of that intervention is already in place now, so if that’s not worked, then the full reorganization option needs to be available,” Kruse says.
Skeptics fear parent trigger bills could make a bad situation worse.
“It is inherently divisive: what about the 49 percent, or 30 percent, or whatever percent of parents who don’t want the changes the majority demands? They’ve got no choice but to fight it out with their neighbors,” Neil McCluskey of the Cato Institute told StateImpact Florida.
Education historian Diane Ravitch argues parent trigger laws can only benefit private management companies who would run the charter schools opened in place of a traditional public school. She writes in The New York Times:
Public schools don’t belong to the 51 percent of the parents whose children are enrolled this year. They don’t belong to the teachers or administrators. They belong to the public. They were built with public funds. The only legitimate reason to close a neighborhood public school is under-enrollment. If a school is struggling, it needs help from district leaders, not a closure notice.
Time to contact your state senators and let them know where you stand on SB341. Just say NO!
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Vic’s Statehouse Notes #104– January 8, 2013
Dear Friends,
Right out of the box as the General Assembly begins, Senator Kruse has scheduled a hearing on a bill to expand the voucher program for Wednesday, January 9 at 1:30pm in Statehouse Room 233.
Senate Bill 184 sponsored by Senator Yoder will be one of four bills heard in the Senate Education Committee’s first meeting. Based on past practice, the vote will be taken at the subsequent meeting next week, but this is the meeting when testimony from the public will be taken.
This proposed bill would expand vouchers to allow siblings of current voucher recipients to receive a voucher without qualifying for eligibility by first attending a public school, as the law requires now. The synopsis as it appears on Senate Bill 184 is as follows:
How much new additional state money would it cost? The non-partisan Legislative Services Agency writes a projection of the fiscal cost of each bill. On this bill, LSA projected that the financial support to all schools could be reduced proportionately:
“The bill could reduce the school formula revenue for local schools. Currently, the Choice Scholarship grants are paid from the savings in tuition support since the students attended public schools the year before … . The addition of students into the program who are not included in the tuition support projections could cause the total distribution for the school formula, Choice Scholarship awards, and the Mitch Daniels Early Graduation Scholarships to exceed the tuition support appropriation. If distributions exceed the appropriation, then distributions to all schools would be proportionately reduced.”
Another way to figure the cost would be take the current average cost per voucher ($3932 according to LSA) and then multiply by an estimate of the number of siblings who would get a voucher. If only one out of five of the current voucher students (20%) would have a sibling eligible for a voucher, the cost to the state would be $7.1 million dollars. That dollar figure comes from multiplying the average voucher $3932 by 1826 students, just one fifth of the 9130 who now get a voucher.
What could $7.1 million be used for other than tuition support for private and religious schools? Here are two examples: In the state budget in 2011, professional development funding was zeroed out, previously funded at $5.5 million per year. Restoring $7.1 million for professional development would help every student in the state by helping all teachers. Also state funding for ESL students, called the Non-English Speaking Fund, was cut in the last budget to $5 million. Another $7.1 million would certainly help pay the substantial local school general fund costs for educating ESL students.
The big picture here is that the school funding formula was cut by $300 million in 2009 during the Great Recession and that money was never restored to public school budgets, even when Indiana declared a huge surplus. Given this plight of public school funding, why is giving new state money for the first time to private school tuition a top priority?
Public school advocates should rise up in righteous indignation at the thought of giving millions of new state dollars to private schools when public schools have not been made whole after their funds were slashed during the Great Recession.
What Can You Do?
First, contact your State Senator to express your opposition to SB 184 expanding private school vouchers when public school funding was not restored after the cuts during the Great Recession.
Second, contact other Senators who you might know or who are on the Education and Career Development Committee. Here are the committee members as listed on the General Assembly website:
Chair: Senator Kruse
Members: Yoder R.M., Banks, Buck, Kenley, Pete Miller, Leising, Schneider, Rogers R.M.M., Broden, Mrvan, Taylor
Third, if you are available Wednesday, come to the meeting to testify. Anyone who signs in as the meeting begins at 1:30 will be called on to speak against the bill when SB 184 gets its turn. No one needs to speak at length, but having several from various places in the state who are willing to drive in to testify in support of public schools and in opposition to vouchers would be extremely helpful. The weather is supposed to be warmer and dry on Wednesday, so come if you can and express your outrage that private school tuition support is being given top priority as the session begins when public schools have still not been made whole after the recession.
Some have claimed that this session will not be as contentious as the 2011 and 2012 sessions. Nothing is more contentious for those who support public education then starting out with an expansion of vouchers that for the first time will not be a money saver but will cost taxpayer dollars.
Please do whatever you can do on this by Wednesday afternoon. We now know that the grassroots support for public education is strong. May the grassroots get to work to let Senators know how you feel about spending new money to expand vouchers.
Thanks!
Vic Smith
ICPE will be working to promote public education in the Statehouse as efforts are made this week to expand vouchers. We are well represented by our lobbyist Joel Hand, but to keep him in place we need all members from last year to renew and we need new members who support public education.
Go to www.icpe2011.com for membership and renewal information.
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.
Right out of the box as the General Assembly begins, Senator Kruse has scheduled a hearing on a bill to expand the voucher program for Wednesday, January 9 at 1:30pm in Statehouse Room 233.
Senate Bill 184 sponsored by Senator Yoder will be one of four bills heard in the Senate Education Committee’s first meeting. Based on past practice, the vote will be taken at the subsequent meeting next week, but this is the meeting when testimony from the public will be taken.
This proposed bill would expand vouchers to allow siblings of current voucher recipients to receive a voucher without qualifying for eligibility by first attending a public school, as the law requires now. The synopsis as it appears on Senate Bill 184 is as follows:
Synopsis: Choice scholarship eligibility. Provides that a sibling of a student who is receiving a choice scholarship is eligible to receive a choice scholarship without first attending two semesters in a public school or receiving a scholarship from a scholarship granting organization.This short bill if enacted would mark a major change. Until now, all voucher students have had to transfer from a public school to a voucher school. Based on that move, the voucher bill was sold to legislators under the rationale that vouchers would save money when students transfer from the public school to the less expensive private school. With this bill, for the first time, students could get a voucher without transferring from a public school. Each voucher then would become a new fiscal expense for the state, ending the rationale that vouchers will save money. This bill therefore has a fiscal impact and would require new additional state funding.
The bill is not long. This is the entire text of the bill, with the new language in bold:
1 SECTION 1. IC 20-51-1-4.5, AS ADDED BY P.L.92-2011,
2 SECTION 5, IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE
3 JULY 1, 2013]: Sec. 4.5. "Eligible individual" refers to an individual
4 who:
5 (1) has legal settlement in Indiana;
6 (2) is at least five (5) years of age and less than twenty-two (22)
7 years of age on the date in the school year specified in
8 IC 20-33-2-7;
9 (3) either has been, or is currently, or, in the case of an
10 individual described in subdivision (5)(C), will be enrolled in
11 an accredited school;
12 (4) is a member of a household with an annual income of not
13 more than one hundred fifty percent (150%) of the amount
14 required for the individual to qualify for the federal free or
15 reduced price lunch program; and
16 (5) either: falls into one (1) of the following categories:
17 (A) Was enrolled in grade 1 through 12 in a school corporation
1 that did not charge the individual transfer tuition for at least
2 two (2) semesters immediately preceding the first semester for
3 which the individual receives a choice scholarship under
4 IC 20-51-4. or
5 (B) Received a scholarship from a scholarship granting
6 organization under IC 20-51-3 or a choice scholarship under
7 IC 20-51-4 in a preceding school year, including a school year
8 that does not immediately precede a school year in which the
9 individual receives a scholarship from a scholarship granting
10 organization under IC 20-51-3 or a choice scholarship under
11 IC 20-51-4.
12 (C) Is the sibling of an eligible individual who is receiving
13 a choice scholarship under IC 20-51-4.
How much new additional state money would it cost? The non-partisan Legislative Services Agency writes a projection of the fiscal cost of each bill. On this bill, LSA projected that the financial support to all schools could be reduced proportionately:
“The bill could reduce the school formula revenue for local schools. Currently, the Choice Scholarship grants are paid from the savings in tuition support since the students attended public schools the year before … . The addition of students into the program who are not included in the tuition support projections could cause the total distribution for the school formula, Choice Scholarship awards, and the Mitch Daniels Early Graduation Scholarships to exceed the tuition support appropriation. If distributions exceed the appropriation, then distributions to all schools would be proportionately reduced.”
Another way to figure the cost would be take the current average cost per voucher ($3932 according to LSA) and then multiply by an estimate of the number of siblings who would get a voucher. If only one out of five of the current voucher students (20%) would have a sibling eligible for a voucher, the cost to the state would be $7.1 million dollars. That dollar figure comes from multiplying the average voucher $3932 by 1826 students, just one fifth of the 9130 who now get a voucher.
What could $7.1 million be used for other than tuition support for private and religious schools? Here are two examples: In the state budget in 2011, professional development funding was zeroed out, previously funded at $5.5 million per year. Restoring $7.1 million for professional development would help every student in the state by helping all teachers. Also state funding for ESL students, called the Non-English Speaking Fund, was cut in the last budget to $5 million. Another $7.1 million would certainly help pay the substantial local school general fund costs for educating ESL students.
The big picture here is that the school funding formula was cut by $300 million in 2009 during the Great Recession and that money was never restored to public school budgets, even when Indiana declared a huge surplus. Given this plight of public school funding, why is giving new state money for the first time to private school tuition a top priority?
Public school advocates should rise up in righteous indignation at the thought of giving millions of new state dollars to private schools when public schools have not been made whole after their funds were slashed during the Great Recession.
What Can You Do?
First, contact your State Senator to express your opposition to SB 184 expanding private school vouchers when public school funding was not restored after the cuts during the Great Recession.
Second, contact other Senators who you might know or who are on the Education and Career Development Committee. Here are the committee members as listed on the General Assembly website:
Chair: Senator Kruse
Members: Yoder R.M., Banks, Buck, Kenley, Pete Miller, Leising, Schneider, Rogers R.M.M., Broden, Mrvan, Taylor
Third, if you are available Wednesday, come to the meeting to testify. Anyone who signs in as the meeting begins at 1:30 will be called on to speak against the bill when SB 184 gets its turn. No one needs to speak at length, but having several from various places in the state who are willing to drive in to testify in support of public schools and in opposition to vouchers would be extremely helpful. The weather is supposed to be warmer and dry on Wednesday, so come if you can and express your outrage that private school tuition support is being given top priority as the session begins when public schools have still not been made whole after the recession.
Some have claimed that this session will not be as contentious as the 2011 and 2012 sessions. Nothing is more contentious for those who support public education then starting out with an expansion of vouchers that for the first time will not be a money saver but will cost taxpayer dollars.
Please do whatever you can do on this by Wednesday afternoon. We now know that the grassroots support for public education is strong. May the grassroots get to work to let Senators know how you feel about spending new money to expand vouchers.
Thanks!
Vic Smith
ICPE will be working to promote public education in the Statehouse as efforts are made this week to expand vouchers. We are well represented by our lobbyist Joel Hand, but to keep him in place we need all members from last year to renew and we need new members who support public education.
Go to www.icpe2011.com for membership and renewal information.
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.
Honor Our Votes for Glenda Ritz--Petition Closed
Our friends at the Indiana Coalition for Public Education--Monroe County and South Central Indiana blog have closed the petition started to support the 1.3 million citizens who expressed a desire for change by electing Glenda Ritz as Indiana's Superintendent of Public Instruction.
Honor Our Votes for Glenda Ritz
by Cathy Fuentes-Rohwer
This week I closed down the petition on change.org ("Governor Daniels, Governor-elect Pence, the Indiana state legislature: Honor our 1,300,000 votes for Glenda Ritz"). Over 10, 275 people signed their names and commented on our petition since November. Glenda Ritz will take her position as our new state superintendent in just a few days and it is time for us to turn our energies toward supporting her and supporting our public schools with a new administration and new governor at the helm.
The legacy of Tony Bennett and Mitch Daniels will be difficult to undo or even buffer our kids and teachers from. There has been so much damage and structural change. It will be difficult to undo or even buffer our kids and teachers from the results. But we must try.
Politicians, state board members, and corporate reformers across the country have tried to manipulate the meaning and intentions of our votes for Glenda Ritz. They claimed that we were voting against Tony Bennett's personal style, that those evil teacher unions successfully organized against Bennett to salvage their "status quo" (so cliche! so dishonest!), that teachers used schools and computers illegally as campaign headquarters for Ritz, etc. I guess that is the best they can do to try to salvage their egos and momentum. But it is a feeble attempt to cover up the truth: over 1,300,000 people were eager and vehement in their desire for change in direction in education. A vote for change in one's state legislator, for example, could reflect many different issues on the part of a voter, but the vote for state superintendent of public instruction reflects the direction of education. Period. The spin by corporate reformers is just pathetic.
The particular motivations for voting for Ritz were individual, of course. For those of us with children (I have four) in the schools, we could feel the intensity and stress emanating from both our kids and our kids' teachers. I know parents whose children were crying and throwing up over their fears around standardized testing. The stakes are now so high: will you pass on to the next grade? Will your school get a failing grade and be taken over or lose funding? Will your teacher be declared "ineffective" and lose her job?
We want our kids to have an intrinsic desire to learn, to find their passions and to do hands-on experiments. But the pressure on schools to perform on tests results in a narrowing of curriculum instead; fill-in-the-bubble sheets, constant assessment of language arts and computer programs that develop good "test taking" skills predominate the school experience. My 8 year-old comes home every week with fill-in-the-bubble worksheets that my 18 year-old never had. I love my son's teacher and respect her tremendously. The fact that my child still has the opportunity to do projects and play outside is a credit to her integrity and ingenuity as a professional, as well as the fact that our school has the leeway of being an "A"and "four-star" school, reducing some (not all) of the pressure to perform on tests.
This labeling of schools through an A-F grading system is another reason we voted out Bennett. Some communities have only one high school in their towns. To brand their school with a "D" is to brand the entire community as sub-par. The school is the place where people gather to watch sports, to see theater programs; it is the proverbial "village" raising their children. There are fabulous things happening at "F" schools with caring and brilliant professionals engaging children every day in the process of learning and growing. But the "grade" is a better reflection of a school's socieoeconomic makeup than it is of the true growth happening within. We voters objected to this punitive form of "reform". Help us, don't punish us.
The "help" Bennett offered was in the form of private businesses waiting in the wings to take over our "failing" schools. We connected the dots between the testing companies, charter school companies, and the other businesses lining Tony Bennett's campaign coffers and the change occurring in our schools. "Accountability", "results" and "data-driven": these were the business-speak words with which more and more emphasis on the test was justified. But we recognized the incongruity with a business model and the very complex, human activity that is education. The bottom line for a business is profit. The bottom line for schools is the child. We understood that these profiteers and politicians were not the experts in children or education, our teachers and educators are. And we voted in an award-winning, expert educator for the position of educational leadership in our schools.
We parents entrust our children to teachers who know that teaching is an art and a service, not a quantifiable science. We know that teachers are professionals and we believe in real instruction, classroom experience, knowledge and expertise in how kids learn and grow. Bennett and Daniels have done much to undermine the professional nature of teaching, all the while bashing them for their lack of professional qualities. We voted for Glenda Ritz because we believe in our public school system and in our teachers. We recognize the flaws and need for improvements, but we have faith that educators and educational research are the keys to that improvement, not politicians and corporations.
Our message was clear, but our work is just beginning. Glenda Ritz will need our help to fight the big money seeking to profit from our kids' schools. We must continue to write to our representatives, to our state board of education, and our governor, holding them accountable for the atmosphere of fear and stress within which our children are trying to learn. We must work at regaining the local control they have taken away from us.
Over 1,300,000 of us voted for our kids, for our teachers and for our communities, to protect public education, the cornerstone of our democracy, from profiteers. To truly honor those votes, we must continue to stay informed, engaged and active. We must keep schools for kids, not for profit.
Democracy is not a spectator sport.
Indiana DOE Open House
Glenda Ritz has invited the public to an open house at the Indiana DOE.
INVITATION - Department of Education Open House, Saturday, January 19, NOON to 3:00 PM.
We are holding a public open house at the Department of Education offices in the Statehouse two weeks from today on Saturday, January 19 from NOON to 3:00 PM. The DOE offices are located in the northwest corner of the main floor lobby. The event is open to everyone and is being held on a Saturday in order to maximize the number of people that might be able to attend. Please join us.
Monday, January 7, 2013
Republican Legislative Surveys
Surveys
Republican legislators are sending out surveys this week. Please fill out the survey from your district representative.
You can find your legislators here:
http://district.iga.in.gov/districtlookup
Choose your legislator from the drop down menu on the left side of the page at the House Republican web site...
http://www.in.gov/legislative/house_republicans/
or the Senate Republican web site...
http://www.in.gov/legislative/senate_republicans/
Once you get to your legislator's page find the link to the survey. For House members the survey is on the right, at the top. The senate surveys are in the center at the bottom.
There are a several questions regarding education on this survey and many of the questions are slanted, so it is very important that you fill out the comment section to let these legislators know what you think.
Tracking Legislation/Legislators
Here is a good way to track what is happening in our legislatures, both state and federal.
LegiScan | Bringing People to the Process
Republican legislators are sending out surveys this week. Please fill out the survey from your district representative.
You can find your legislators here:
http://district.iga.in.gov/districtlookup
Choose your legislator from the drop down menu on the left side of the page at the House Republican web site...
http://www.in.gov/legislative/house_republicans/
or the Senate Republican web site...
http://www.in.gov/legislative/senate_republicans/
Once you get to your legislator's page find the link to the survey. For House members the survey is on the right, at the top. The senate surveys are in the center at the bottom.
There are a several questions regarding education on this survey and many of the questions are slanted, so it is very important that you fill out the comment section to let these legislators know what you think.
Tracking Legislation/Legislators
Here is a good way to track what is happening in our legislatures, both state and federal.
LegiScan | Bringing People to the Process
In the modern world, awareness of legislation and having information about the laws that affect daily life for all Americans is more important than ever. However tracking the happenings from your local state legislature to the of actions in every capitol around the country up to national Congressional regulations is a daunting task.
Vic’s Statehouse Notes #103– January 7, 2013
Dear Friends,
In Dr. Bennett’s final meeting last Wednesday (Jan. 2), the State Board of Education approved new language to lower the standards for getting teaching license.
This action was prompted by amendments made to REPA 2 when it was approved with at the previous State Board meeting on December 5th, described in detail in Vic’s Statehouse Notes #100. The approval of this new language near the end of a long meeting completes the rule changes in teacher and administrative licensing that have been strongly opposed by educators and education organizations.
The new language pertains to adding a pedagogy component to the Adjunct Teacher Permit. Here is the text of the new language.
The Adjunct Teaching Permit was attacked repeatedly during public comments in the December 5th meeting for granting a 5-year teaching license to individuals who have had no teacher training courses and no student teaching experiences. In response, State Board Member Neil Pickett who made the motion to approve REPA 2 added an amendment to include a pedagogy component in the requirements for an Adjunct Teaching Permit. He specifically said on Dec. 5th that he wanted the Adjunct Teachers to have pedagogical training right away as they begin their teaching, following the model proposed by Dr. Bennett of the workplace specialists who begin training in the first year of their experience as vocational teachers.
The new language approved last Wednesday does not align with directions given by the Board in the discussion of this issue on December 5th. It does not require Adjunct Teachers to begin pedagogical studies in the first year, but gives them five years to complete what I would call a “pedagogical light” program which is being created for this purpose. By then, it may be too late for their success in the classroom.
I wanted to make sure that all members of the State Board realized that the new language did not meet the speed of delivery that they had asked for on December 5th, so I prepared a public comment for the January 2nd meeting which they could hear before the vote, asking them to table the new language until the Department could propose language which meets the board’s directions. Here is the text of my public comment.
I was not the only speaker on this issue during public comments. Shawn Shriver representing Ball State and a former director of certification in IDOE spoke first asking for a mechanism to evaluate and monitor the quality of this new program. No such plan for IDOE oversight of the pedagogical program was included in the new language, but only the six topics the pedagogical studies were to include. Then Jill Shedd representing the Indiana Association for Colleges of Teacher Education strongly made the same point: this new pedagogical program lacks any oversight for quality review. What makes oversight by IDOE even more important is that the new language opens the program to for-profit entities, to professional organizations and to school corporations, as well as to teacher education colleges.
Who will be watching the henhouse?
Summary
In summary, the Adjunct Teaching Permit would allow anyone with a Bachelors Degree to get a 5-year permit to teach if they have a 3.0 in their subject and pass the content area test. The new language added a 6-topic pedagogy program to be completed before the 5-year permit can be renewed.
The new language, in my analysis, has clear problems:
The delivery of these programs by for-profit entities rather than by colleges is a new and extremely controversial concept which by itself should trigger additional hearings.
These revisions are clearly major, substantive changes. Indiana Code 4-22-2-29 says:
Sec. 29. (b) An agency may not adopt a rule that substantially differs from the version or versions of the proposed rule or rules published in the Indiana Register under section 24 of this chapter, unless it is a logical outgrowth of any proposed rule as supported by any written comments submitted:
I believe that this rule was not ready for final approval. The board should have tabled this language and made plans to bring these major changes revealed for the first time only a few days ago to the public for additional public hearings.
Instead, the State Board voted to accept the new language unanimously with no discussion.
Glenda Ritz sat on the front row during the entire meeting. In comments to the media afterward, she expressed interest in revisiting this issue.
Best wishes,
Vic Smith
ICPE begins work to promote public education in the Statehouse this week as the General Assembly begins. We are well represented by our lobbyist Joel Hand, but to keep him in place we need all members from last year to renew and we need new members who support public education.
Go to www.icpe2011.com for membership and renewal information.
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.
In Dr. Bennett’s final meeting last Wednesday (Jan. 2), the State Board of Education approved new language to lower the standards for getting teaching license.
This action was prompted by amendments made to REPA 2 when it was approved with at the previous State Board meeting on December 5th, described in detail in Vic’s Statehouse Notes #100. The approval of this new language near the end of a long meeting completes the rule changes in teacher and administrative licensing that have been strongly opposed by educators and education organizations.
The new language pertains to adding a pedagogy component to the Adjunct Teacher Permit. Here is the text of the new language.
The Adjunct Teaching Permit was attacked repeatedly during public comments in the December 5th meeting for granting a 5-year teaching license to individuals who have had no teacher training courses and no student teaching experiences. In response, State Board Member Neil Pickett who made the motion to approve REPA 2 added an amendment to include a pedagogy component in the requirements for an Adjunct Teaching Permit. He specifically said on Dec. 5th that he wanted the Adjunct Teachers to have pedagogical training right away as they begin their teaching, following the model proposed by Dr. Bennett of the workplace specialists who begin training in the first year of their experience as vocational teachers.
The new language approved last Wednesday does not align with directions given by the Board in the discussion of this issue on December 5th. It does not require Adjunct Teachers to begin pedagogical studies in the first year, but gives them five years to complete what I would call a “pedagogical light” program which is being created for this purpose. By then, it may be too late for their success in the classroom.
I wanted to make sure that all members of the State Board realized that the new language did not meet the speed of delivery that they had asked for on December 5th, so I prepared a public comment for the January 2nd meeting which they could hear before the vote, asking them to table the new language until the Department could propose language which meets the board’s directions. Here is the text of my public comment.
I was not the only speaker on this issue during public comments. Shawn Shriver representing Ball State and a former director of certification in IDOE spoke first asking for a mechanism to evaluate and monitor the quality of this new program. No such plan for IDOE oversight of the pedagogical program was included in the new language, but only the six topics the pedagogical studies were to include. Then Jill Shedd representing the Indiana Association for Colleges of Teacher Education strongly made the same point: this new pedagogical program lacks any oversight for quality review. What makes oversight by IDOE even more important is that the new language opens the program to for-profit entities, to professional organizations and to school corporations, as well as to teacher education colleges.
Who will be watching the henhouse?
Summary
In summary, the Adjunct Teaching Permit would allow anyone with a Bachelors Degree to get a 5-year permit to teach if they have a 3.0 in their subject and pass the content area test. The new language added a 6-topic pedagogy program to be completed before the 5-year permit can be renewed.
The new language, in my analysis, has clear problems:
- No minimum length of time on each of the six topics is prescribed.
- The pedagogy program is not required in the first year of the Adjunct Teacher Permit but may be delayed for three or four years before it is started.
- For-profit entities as well as non-profit entities or universities can offer the pedagogy program.
- No method for the state to evaluate or monitor the quality of the pedagogy program is included.
The delivery of these programs by for-profit entities rather than by colleges is a new and extremely controversial concept which by itself should trigger additional hearings.
These revisions are clearly major, substantive changes. Indiana Code 4-22-2-29 says:
Sec. 29. (b) An agency may not adopt a rule that substantially differs from the version or versions of the proposed rule or rules published in the Indiana Register under section 24 of this chapter, unless it is a logical outgrowth of any proposed rule as supported by any written comments submitted:
(1) during the public comment period; orClearly, this language “substantially differs from the version” printed in the official record. It describes a new “pedagogically light” training program which may be offered by for-profit entities as well as accredited colleges, language that was not “supported by any written comments submitted during the public comment period” as the law requires.
(2) by the Indiana economic development corporation under IC 4-22-2.1-6(a), if applicable.
I believe that this rule was not ready for final approval. The board should have tabled this language and made plans to bring these major changes revealed for the first time only a few days ago to the public for additional public hearings.
Instead, the State Board voted to accept the new language unanimously with no discussion.
Glenda Ritz sat on the front row during the entire meeting. In comments to the media afterward, she expressed interest in revisiting this issue.
Best wishes,
Vic Smith
ICPE begins work to promote public education in the Statehouse this week as the General Assembly begins. We are well represented by our lobbyist Joel Hand, but to keep him in place we need all members from last year to renew and we need new members who support public education.
Go to www.icpe2011.com for membership and renewal information.
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.
Friday, January 4, 2013
January 4, 2013: Question of the Day
"What is on the minds of our students? We mostly have no idea. The Edupundits all seem to agree that the most important variable in student academic achievement is teacher quality. But isn’t the most important variable in student academic achievement really student academic work in the end?" -- Will Fitzhugh
TODAY'S QUESTION: How do we get students to care about learning and to engage actively in their education?
Click the question mark below to see all our Questions of the Day or click the link in the sidebar.
TODAY'S QUESTION: How do we get students to care about learning and to engage actively in their education?
~~~
Click the question mark below to see all our Questions of the Day or click the link in the sidebar.
~~~
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)