October 25, 2013: Question of the Day

After all of the contentiousness between the State Board of Education and Glenda Ritz, what is the REAL agenda behind this concerted effort to marginalize the Superintendent?

~~~

Click the question mark below to see all our Questions of the Day or click the link in the sidebar.

~~~

October 24, 2013: Question of the Day

Here are some questions to ponder on this chilly morning.
1. If the State Board can petition Long and Bosma to speed up the flawed A-F grading system, why can't they be asked to slow down the process?
2. Why didn't the Board object when Tony Bennett did not present the scores until Oct. 31st last year?
3. Since oversight is so important to the SBOE, why was there no oversight of Bennett's IDOE?
4. What does the term "Double Standard" mean?

~~~

Click the question mark below to see all our Questions of the Day or click the link in the sidebar.

~~~

Vic’s Statehouse Notes #157 – October 21, 2013

Dear Friends,

Speaker Bosma and President Pro Tempore Long have voluntarily leaped into the quicksand of the A-F controversy. Will they have better luck getting out of it than did Dr. Bennett?

In an absolutely astounding move, they have turned Indiana student test data into a political football in the battle for control of the educational policy agenda in Indiana. That is not wise public policy.

In a letter dated Friday, October 18th, Speaker Bosma and President Pro Tempore Long instructed the Legislative Services Agency, the bipartisan service agency of the General Assembly, to calculate the A-F grades so that the State Board could officially approve the grades at their November meeting. Issuing this instruction indicates their agreement with the October 16th complaint of State Board members that the Indiana Department of Education had inappropriately delayed the A-F school letter grades, which are based on student test scores.

This all occurred while Superintendent Ritz was in China on a trip organized by Global Indiana.

The leaders of the House and Senate by these actions have now involved the entire General Assembly in this A-F controversy, which previously was confined to the State Board of Education. Rep. Vernon Smith, the ranking Democrat on the House Education Committee, has now called for the State Board members to resign.

I urge all public school advocates in Indiana to read the following details and then contact legislators and State Board members with your concerns about the A-F system.

The Letter of October 16th

In a letter to Senate President Pro Tempore Long and House Speaker Bosma dated October 16, 2013, the members of the State Board wrote: “We are writing to express our concern regarding the delay by the Indiana Department of Education in providing A-F Grades for the 2012-13 school year to the State Board of Education and to request the assistance of Legislative Services Agency in calculating the grades in time for the Board’s official approval this November.”

I attended the long State Board meeting on October 2nd and heard along with the Board several discussions about the A-F system. The Board was told that letter grades would be issued by Thanksgiving. No board member raised a question when that was said. Now, though, apparently, impatience has set in and the State Board is attributing intentional delays by the IDOE as the problem and wants LSA to take over the data.

Have there been intentional delays by the Department? I can’t see any. The ISTEP scores took months to assess after the CTB/McGraw Hill computer debacle to determine which student scores should be invalidated. When that was done, the parent right to request a rescore had to be honored, and CTB/McGraw Hill will require until November 5th to complete all of the rescored tests. Then and only then will all the data be available for calculating grades. If you are wondering who allowed parents to request a rescore which would obviously slow down the rush to grades, the answer is: The General Assembly. Recent legislation confirmed the right of parents to ask for a rescore, which is especially important for essay questions and constructed response items.

Later in the letter, the State Board members said, “We are now mid-way through October, and the Department has yet to report 2012-13 A-F grades or release teacher effectiveness ratings as required under Indiana law.” One year ago, with no computer glitches in the administration of the test, Dr. Bennett took until October 31st to release the A-F letter grades. Is the State Board trying to blame Superintendent Ritz for the CTB/McGraw Hill testing problems that generated a delay of several months?

While dated October 16th, Speaker Bosma and President Pro Temp Long received the letter late on October 17th, by their own account. Officials in the Indiana Department of Education reported that an email arrived late on October 17th, but it was not actually seen by anyone in IDOE until Friday, October 18th, after the media called to ask for a response. With Superintendent Ritz out of the country, it fell to David Galvin, director of communications for IDOE, to respond. He was quoted in the Star as follows: “The State Board of Education has jumped the gun. No one can calculate the A-F grades without the finalized ISTEP scores. We want to do this right and accurately.”

The Letter of October 18th

Speaker Bosma and President Pro Tempore Long wrote a letter dated October 18, 2013 to George Angelone, Executive Director of the Legislative Services Agency which began: “Please see the enclosed letter from the members of the Indiana State Board of Education (Board), which we received late last evening by email. As you will see, it expresses the Board’s concerns that the delay in the issuance in the A-F grades for the 2012-13 school year will have a negative effect on a number of important aspects of our education system. The letter requests that we instruct the Legislative Services Agency to enter into a data sharing Memorandum of Understanding with the Department of Education as soon as possible and provide the calculation the A-F grades for the 2012 -13 school year to the Board.”

I have observed over many years that the Indiana Department of Education takes very seriously the trust that is placed in them to maintain the accuracy and the privacy of student data. For the first 20 years of my 40 year career, there was not enough trust in the state to allow any individual student records to be kept in Indianapolis. All records were kept locally. Gradually with the rise of state testing in the late 1980’s and later the interest in tracking individual progress to graduation using student testing numbers, parents trusted the state to fairly and properly handle student test data.

Speaker Bosma and President Pro Tempore Long have now put that trust at risk. Parents can legitimately ask why student data is being involved in a clearly partisan dispute between the Republican leadership in the Statehouse and Superintendent Ritz, the only Democrat holding statewide office. This is clearly a manufactured crisis by members of the State Board that want more control over the pace of A-F grade announcements. The voters put Superintendent Ritz in charge by a wide margin, but the State Board members are undermining her reputation with complaints of delays and a move to transfer the data to LSA.

The letter notes that transferring the data to LSA requires a Memorandum of Understanding with the Department of Education. This involves procedures to protect the privacy, accuracy and integrity of the data. In order to investigate the A-F grading controversy from Dr. Bennett’s emails, an MOU was established to between LSA and IDOE to allow two computer systems to run the A-F data as a double check on accuracy. This was done as part of the Grew/Sheldrake report. That report is now done, and that Memorandum of Understanding is over. The proposal to create a new MOU for this new purpose leaves several questions:

1. Can IDOE be forced to enter into an MOU for a purpose they believe is essentially a partisan political attack?
2. Does Superintendent Ritz have a say on whether an MOU will transfer student data to the legislature?
3. What safeguards will parents and educators be given to assure that the test data of their students will not be used for political purposes if it is in the hands of the legislature?
4. If LSA has all the student data, can members of the General Assembly request access to student test data for groups or even for individuals?
5. Is the State Board asking for a permanent transfer of student data to LSA leading to the elimination of IDOE staff that have been caring for the student data files?
6. Can this entire policy on student data be changed by one letter from Speaker Bosma and President Pro Tempore Long issued on a Friday when few are watching? Shouldn’t the General Assembly hold hearings before moving student data out of the Department of Education?

The New Amnesia about the Current A-F System

Speaker Bosma and President Pro Tempore Long have apparently had amnesia since their April legislation addressing the current A-F system.

The overarching surreal aspect of this astounding new controversy is a move to speed up letter grades for schools using a formula that has already been discredited and voided by the Indiana General Assembly. While the State Board is still in love with their A-F formula that they devised with Dr. Bennett, members of the General Assembly are not. They listened to constituents after the first grades were given last Oct. 31st and passed HEA 1427 in April saying: “Sec. 5. (a) Not later than November 15, 2013, the state board shall establish new categories or designations of school performance under the requirements of this chapter to replace 511 IAC 6.2-6. “

Since 511 IAC 6.2-6 is the A-F system, the law seems totally clear. Lawmakers believed the A-F system was flawed and ordered a new A-F system by November 15th. The law reads on:

“The new standards of assessing school performance:
(1) must be based on a measurement of individual student academic performance and growth to proficiency; and
(2) may not be based on a measurement of student performance or growth compared with peers.”

These points correct the main flaw of the current system in using statistics in the Indiana Growth Model which compared the performance of students to other students, metrics known in the statistics world as “norm-referenced” measures. The preferred metrics measure students against fixed standards, known as “criterion-referenced” measures. The new law continues:

511 IAC 6.2-6 is void on the effective date of the emergency or final rules adopted under this section.

The current A-F system has been voided, but State Board Secretary Dan Elsener clearly spoke its praises at the October 2nd State Board meeting. He still likes it and wants to continue work with the consultant that Dr. Bennett used in devising it, Damian Betebenner. The old system will not be void until the State Board passes new rules for a new system, and Dan Elsener showed no interest in doing that any time soon. Now, with the October 16th letter, it is clear that the State Board is ignoring the flaws of the old system and is using it to try to embarrass Superintendent Ritz and to take control of the data from the IDOE.

Here is an amazing thing about HEA 1427 and the law voiding the A-F system that the State Board now wants to speed up: It was passed solely by the Republican caucus. Not one Democrat in the House or the Senate voted for it because it put the A-F labels in law for the first time. Voiding the law was the product of the work of Speaker Bosma and President Pro Tempore Long, and now they want to forget about voiding it and cut corners of data review to speed it to the public.

Amazing.

The Current System is Flawed

The collective amnesia that has set in on the flaws of the current A-F system, still praised by Dan Elsener, demands a brief reminder of the reasons why it was jettisoned by the members of the General Assembly:

Flaw #1: It was based primarily on the percent passing, rather than on improvement as PL221 called for. That meant that the kids near the pass line, the so-called “bubble” kids, get extra attention to try to get them over the pass line in the next test. There was no incentive to give all students an equal share of attention.

Flaw #2: The bonuses and demerits for growth were anemic, bumping grades up or down only a little.

Flaw #3: The growth model used for bonus points was based on peer comparison statistics. This led to amazing and unpredictable results about low-growth and high-growth students, especially for many highly talented students who scored very well consistently and a somehow got pegged as low-growth and a mark against the school. The ultimate example of this concern came when one superintendent and principal documented a student who got perfect scores two years in a row and was marked as low growth by the state metrics. An appeal on this case was rejected.

Flaw #4: When all was said and done, the current A-F system was badly miscalibrated. Many good schools were given low grades, damaging the economic development efforts of communities all over Indiana as they try to explain to prospective businesses why their strong local schools ended up with a low grade using a flawed grading system. Ask MacArthur School in Crown Point, a National Blue Ribbon School in Crown Point that Dr. Bennett’s system downgraded to a B. Ask Liberty Early Elementary in Decatur Township serving only kindergarten and younger students that Dr. Bennett’s system downgraded to a D based on ISTEP scores of students who had been gone from the school for three years. Ask William Bell #60 in IPS that Dr. Bennett’s system downgraded to an F even though it was reconstituted as a new magnet school for the Reggio early education model and served only K-2. Overall, 18.6% of our schools received D’s or F’s while in Florida at the time gave 6% of its schools D’s and F’s despite clear National Assessment scores showing that Indiana outscores Florida. Even after Dr. Bennett went to Florida and they toughened their system, September 2013 letter grades in Florida showed 16% D’s and F’s. If Indiana’s metrics produced low grades to only 16%, 48 Hoosier schools would have been saved the distraction of explaining a D or an F when they are actually performing at a higher level. The current system is not fair to Indiana’s schools.

Remove the Amnesia!

Hoosier educators, parents and community leaders thought they had won this battle and by Nov. 15, 2013 under the law they would have a new A-F system. If you have read this far, you now know that the advocates for Dr. Bennett’s system are extending it to the maximum possible and are using it to weaken the powers of Superintendent Ritz.

It is time to dust off all those letters and emails sent last year explaining your frustration with Dr. Bennett’s system and send them to the current actors who either never got or have forgotten the message. Tell them the story of how your school was aggrieved or how your student was inappropriately marked low-growth by an inexplicable peer-based growth measure. Send them to:

• Speaker Bosma and President Pro Tempore Long
• Members of the State Board, especially to the five new members who were not there last year when the flawed system was approved: Troy Albert, David Freitas, Gordon Hendry, Andrea Neal and Brad Oliver
• Your local members of the Indiana House and the Indiana Senate
• Members of the House Education Committee and the Senate Education Committee who should be involved in any major policy change about student data.

Hoosier school leaders don’t need the distractions and interruptions brought on by this manufactured crisis, but before good schools are damaged again by the flawed A-F system, state leaders should hear how you feel. Write on!

Thanks for your support and actions on behalf of public education!

Best wishes,

Vic Smith

ICPE is working to promote public education and oppose the privatization of schools in the Statehouse. We thank all who came to the three membership meeting this fall in Indianapolis, Lafayette and Bloomington. They were all excellent discussions! Many renewed their memberships at the meetings. If you have not done so since July 1, the start of our new membership year, we urge you to do so.
We need additional support to carry on our advocacy for public education. We need additional members and additional donations. We need your help!

Go to www.icpe2011.com for membership and renewal information and for full information on our three ICPE membership meetings this fall. Thanks!

Some readers have asked about my background in Indiana public schools. Thanks for asking! Here is a brief bio:

I am a lifelong Hoosier and began teaching in 1969. I served as a social studies teacher, curriculum developer, state research and evaluation consultant, state social studies consultant, district social studies supervisor, assistant principal, principal, educational association staff member, and adjunct university professor. I worked for Garrett-Keyser-Butler Schools, the Indiana University Social Studies Development Center, the Indiana Department of Education, the Indianapolis Public Schools, IUPUI, and the Indiana Urban Schools Association, from which I retired as Associate Director in 2009. I hold three degrees: B.A. in Ed., Ball State University, 1969; M.S. in Ed., Indiana University, 1972; and Ed.D., Indiana University, 1977, along with a Teacher’s Life License and a Superintendent’s License, 1998.

###

Education Dialogue Seeks Common Good

Pace of state reform demands focused involvement on all sides

written by NEIFPE Co-Founder Phyllis Bush, for the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette

Conventional wisdom tells us that elections have consequences, and right now we are reaping the consequences of our last election. Given that Republicans have a supermajority in Indiana and given the fact that our legislators have decided that public education is in dire need of rapid-fire reform, for those of us who are alarmed by the urgency with which these reformers are doing their reforming, what can we do?

To make our voices heard in this contentious atmosphere, it is essential to find common ground and to reach out to one another to use common sense to find the common good. No matter what our political stripes are, most everyone would agree that we all want what is best for our children. Where the difference lies is in the process by which we choose to accomplish that goal.

Let’s assume that these sweeping policies are made with good intent, but let us also allow that some are based on misinformation. Rather than approaching our legislators with pitchforks and invective, perhaps we simply need to present these good people with correct information.

Talking points spoken long enough and loud enough have a tendency to produce firmly held beliefs, which lead to policies based on anecdotal evidence rather than on facts on the ground. Since most of these reforms have now become law, here are a few of the questions that I would like for our policymakers to consider:

• Will there be any oversight or accountability requirements for voucher schools beyond test scores?

Are there any data to measure and track voucher successes and failures? Are there any statistics being generated to follow the child?

• Given that public school districts will not know whether students will be leaving, will there be any assistance to help them plan for fixed costs? Has the fiscal effect of the loss of voucher students by public schools been evaluated? Will this be studied and will this information be shared with the public?

• Has research been done to show whether a school’s grade is correlated to demographics?

• Is research being done to show whether using test scores to evaluate teachers has driven good teachers out of poorly performing schools?

• Have any studies been done to show whether the emphasis on data collection has had either a positive or an adverse effect on children?

In the business world, competition is a good thing, but making schools compete on a somewhat questionable playing field for the resources they desperately need perpetuates a system of winners and losers. Is this what is really best to build strong communities? If schools or children or teachers are not achieving, maybe we need to look at how we can help them rather than punish them.

Needless to say, competition and choice and accountability and rigor are buzzwords that have been bandied about in the reform discussion, but what do those words really mean when we are talking about our children’s education? Perhaps it is up to us to remind our legislators that our young people have only one shot at being children. Rather than looking at children as data points, perhaps we should ask how the wonder of childhood and the joy of discovery and of learning can be measured.

In all the reforms we have seen thus far, where do we see anything about helping to foster healthy and happy children? Isn’t that what most parents want for their children? If we are to find common ground, we need to quit talking past one another and work together toward a system where all children have an equal chance at being successful.

For those of us alarmed about these changes, it is up to us to get informed and engaged. If we call, write and email the policymakers and the newspapers, if we schedule appointments to visit legislators, and if we go to Indianapolis to voice our concerns, perhaps we can open the lines of communication. We need to let our legislators and state board members know we are paying attention. If we are to have genuine reform, it must be built on what we know works best for our children and our communities.

Let us use some common sense to figure out what is best for all of our children.

Phyllis Bush is a retired Fort Wayne Community Schools teacher and one of the founders of the Northeast Indiana Friends of Public Education. She wrote this for The Journal Gazette.

###

Vic’s Statehouse Notes #156 – October 18, 2013

Dear Friends,

When Dr. Bennett changed the A-F system giving Christel House Academy a higher grade, he and his staff consistently changed all the other schools affected by the same alteration. When the review of those changes was completed by the staff of State Superintendent Ritz, it was discovered that while Christel House and other schools had a higher grade, there were four schools that dropped to an F as a result of Dr. Bennett’s adjustments which truncated the data used.

At the October 2nd State Board meeting, Superintendent Ritz presented these findings to the members of the State Board to see if they wanted to give these four schools a break and restore their higher grade that using all of the data available would entitle them to.

The State Board said no. By a vote of 9-1, the State Board confirmed the F grade given to them as a result of Dr. Bennett’s last minute alterations in the A-F system.

While Christel House Academy and several others gained higher grades in Dr. Bennett’s changes, four schools are still lamenting the changes and will now have to live with the F they received last October after Dr. Bennett’s last minute adjustments.

A-F Decisions of the State Board

Superintendent Ritz presented several questions to the State Board on October 2nd regarding the A-F system, telling them that since she was not part of the decision to use this system or to alter it, she would abstain from the voting while the State Board in effect adjudicated the “clean up” questions.

The first question had to do with the grade of three high schools that benefited from a higher grade by Dr. Bennett’s last minute changes. When the caps on each subject were eliminated, a move which helped Christel House gain a grade, three high schools moved from B to A. The problem is that the written rules for high schools specify that caps were not to be eliminated. When Superintendent Ritz gave the State Board members the opportunity to follow the written rule and to restore the lower grade, they voted 10-0 to leave the A grade in place for Northview, Rossville and Speedway High Schools.

The feeling of generosity to lift school grades seen in this vote was abandoned in the second vote. Superintendent Ritz presented the case of four schools that received an F after Dr. Bennett’s 2012 policy decision to consider all schools with unusual grade configurations as Elementary/Middle Schools. Before the changes, they were not rated as F. These four were:

• Hammond Academy of Science and Technology
• Damar Charter Academy
• Career Academy at South Bend
• Cornerstone College Prep School

Dr. Bennett’s policy decision to grade schools with unusual grade combinations as Elementary/Middle Schools helped Christel House and several other schools, but it demoted these four. When given the chance to correct this problem by applying full data to the formula and thereby erasing the F for these four schools, the State Board said no.

Board Member Andrea Neal said this grade was already superseded by a new grade and we shouldn’t go back. Board Member Tony Walker corrected Board member Neal, saying accurately that this grade had not been superseded by a new grade. He expressed concern that the grade of F would be damaging to the schools. He endorsed using all the data available about each school, which would give the Hammond school a D and the other three would be given “No Grade” because they were new schools. He wanted to give the four schools the higher grade that they would have received had Dr. Bennett not intervened to make last minute changes.

Unfortunately for these four schools, he was the only one. The State Board voted 9-1 to confirm the F grades for these schools.

Summary

Dr. Bennett and his staff in October of 2012 eliminated subject matter caps in the formula and treated schools with unusual grade configurations as simply Elementary/Middle Schools. These two policy steps helped Christel House Academy move from a C to an A, but now we know that treating combined schools as Elementary schools demoted four schools to an F which they did not earn initially. Only one member of the State Board thought that the collateral damage to these schools created by Dr. Bennett’s last minute changes should be corrected.

Four schools were harmed by the complex last minute adjustments made last October. The State Board has now voted to ignore the injustice done to these four schools.

The flaws of Dr. Bennett’s A-F system live on.

Hear an Update on the New A-F System on October 19th

Kristin Reed, Policy and Research Coordinator for the Indiana Department of Education, will be the featured speaker at the Indiana Coalition for Public Education fall membership meeting in Bloomington tomorrow, Saturday, October 19th at 2:00pm. She has been monitoring the A-F panel meetings and will provide an update on this issue and other key issues: voucher implementation, the settlement with CTB McGraw Hill on ISTEP+ testing and many others. Please join us in this meeting for all ICPE members and prospective members at the Bloomington City Hall, City Council Chambers, 401 N. Morton, Bloomington, from 2:00 to 3:30pm.

Although no RSVP is necessary, if you can come on Saturday, replying to this message would help us with the count.
Please join us on Saturday to help support public education in Indiana!


Best wishes,

Vic Smith


ICPE is working to promote public education and oppose privatization of schools in the Statehouse. We hope all members and prospective members will come to the membership meetings this fall, the last of which is Saturday, October 19th, 2-3:30pm at the Bloomington City Hall, City Council Chambers, 401 N. Morton, Bloomington. Kristin Reed is the featured speaker. At the meeting you can renew your membership for the 2013-14 membership year which began July 1st if you have not done so already.

To all who have recently renewed or supported our fundraiser in Bloomington, we say thank you! We need additional support to carry on our advocacy for public education. We need additional members and additional donations. We need your help!

Go to www.icpe2011.com for membership and renewal information and for full information on our three ICPE membership meetings this fall. Thanks!


Some readers have asked about my background in Indiana public schools. Thanks for asking! Here is a brief bio:

I am a lifelong Hoosier and began teaching in 1969. I served as a social studies teacher, curriculum developer, state research and evaluation consultant, state social studies consultant, district social studies supervisor, assistant principal, principal, educational association staff member, and adjunct university professor. I worked for Garrett-Keyser-Butler Schools, the Indiana University Social Studies Development Center, the Indiana Department of Education, the Indianapolis Public Schools, IUPUI, and the Indiana Urban Schools Association, from which I retired as Associate Director in 2009. I hold three degrees: B.A. in Ed., Ball State University, 1969; M.S. in Ed., Indiana University, 1972; and Ed.D., Indiana University, 1977, along with a Teacher’s Life License and a Superintendent’s License, 1998.

Messaging we should be using

from Dora Taylor of PAA (Parents Across America):

There was some very impressive polling done regarding language used in getting our point across. To follow are a few items:

"Corporate takeover of our schools" is a far more effective term than "the privatization of our schools".

Regarding vouchers, it resonates better to present the choice as "do you want to improve our schools or send tax dollars to private schools?"

Parent Trigger, the language: "The PT is about handing over our schools to out-of-state private management companies who know nothing about our kids and our community and only care about profits."

Online schools: "Turning over public schools to out-of-state corporations who operate with the goal of making profits is not helping children. Online schools have not proven to provide students with a quality education."

What we are against:

Corporate takeover of our schools
One-size-fits-all reforms.
Risking our children's future.
Losing an entire generation that won't get a second chance.
Treating kids like widgets.
Taxes for education, not CEO bonuses.

What we are for:

A big picture approach to public school improvements.
Investing in our public schools and our children's future.
Well-rounded education that includes music, art, history, civics, PE and vocational training.
Giving teachers the tools to help every child succeed.
Reducing class sizes to give students the individual attention they need.

We need a language that is consistent to get our message through and this has proven to work.

Take from this what you will.

If you want more information or a copy of the handout I received, please e-mail me directly.

Dora

Finding Common Ground

From NEIFPE member, Phyllis Bush:

Conventional wisdom tells us that elections have consequences, and right now we are reaping the consequences of our last election. Given that we have a Super Majority in Indiana and given the fact that our legislators have decided that public education is in dire need of rapid fire reform, for those of us who are alarmed by the urgency by which these reformers are doing their reforming, what can we do?

In order to make our voices heard in this contentious atmosphere, it is essential to find common ground and to reach out to one another to use common sense to find the common good. No matter what our political stripes are, most everyone would agree that we all want what is best for our children. Where the difference lies is the process by which we choose to accomplish that goal.

Let's assume that these sweeping policies are made with good intent, but let us also allow that some are based on misinformation. Rather than approaching our legislators with pitchforks and invective, perhaps we simply need to present these good people with correct information. Talking points spoken long enough and loud enough have a tendency to produce firmly held beliefs, which lead to policies based on anecdotal evidence rather than on facts on the ground.

Since most of these reforms have now become law, here are a few of the questions that I would like for our policy makers to consider:

1. Will there be any oversight or accountability requirements for voucher schools beyond test scores? Is there any data to measure and track voucher successes and failures? Are there any statistics being generated to follow the child?

2. Given that public school districts will not know whether students will be leaving their schools, will there be any assistance to help them plan for fixed costs? Has the fiscal impact of the loss of voucher students to public schools been evaluated? Will this be studied and will this information be shared with the public?

3. Has research been done to show whether or not a school's grade is correlated to demographics?

4. Is research being done to show whether using test scores to evaluate teachers has driven good teachers out of poorly performing schools?

5. Have any studies been done to show whether or not the emphasis on data collection has had either a positive or an adverse effect on children?

In the business world, competition is a very good thing, but making schools compete on a somewhat questionable playing field for the resources they desperately need perpetuates a system of winners and losers. Is this what is really best to build strong communities? If schools or children or teachers are not achieving, maybe we need to look at how we can help them rather than how we can punish them.

Needless to say, competition and choice and accountability and rigor are buzz words that have been bandied about in the reform discussion, but what do those words really mean when we are talking about our children's education? Rather than buying into such simplistic rhetoric, perhaps it is up to us to remind our legislators that our young people have only one shot at being children. Rather than looking at children as data points, perhaps we should ask how can the wonder of childhood and the joy of discovery and of learning be measured? In all of the reforms that we have seen thus far, where do we see anything about helping to foster healthy and happy children? Isn't that what most parents want for their children?

If we are to find common ground, we need to quit talking past one another and work together towards a system where all children have an equal chance at being successful.

For those of us who are alarmed about these changes, it is up to us to get informed and engaged. If we call, write letters and emails to the policy makers and to the newspapers, if we schedule appointments to visit legislators, and if we go to Indianapolis to voice our concerns, perhaps we can open the lines of communication. We need to let our legislators and State Board members know that we ARE paying attention. If we are to have genuine school reform, it must be built on what we know works best for our children and our communities.

Let us use some common sense to figure out what is best for all of our children.

###

Phyllis also just recently published an opinion page item in the Fort Wayne News Sentinel titled, Remember, we are a good people who must do some hard work

Vic’s Statehouse Notes #155 – October 4, 2013

Dear Friends,

The State Board meeting last Wednesday (0ct. 2) can be called “The Battle for Control of the Agenda.” Superintendent Ritz prevailed and kept the agenda on track, but it wasn’t easy. Board member efforts to change the agenda and to have their new staff members bring comments on nearly every point created a whole new contentious dynamic in the meeting.

I have attended nearly all of the State Board meetings since 1997-98, and I have never seen anything like the meeting I witnessed on Wednesday. With loquacious board members and now state board staff speaking freely and frequently on nearly every issue, the 9am meeting went on to 4:10pm with only one brief 25 minute lunch break.

State Board of Education (SBOE) Staff

I went to the meeting wondering if any differences would be noticed due to the Governor’s new bureaucracy giving State Board members their own staff. I didn’t have to wonder long.

We are in a new era of highly visible power wrangling in the education arena. The Governor’s new staff members have their own table in the meeting room, close to the podium for speakers. There were four there on Wednesday, and they all spoke at some point. The Governor’s legal advisor Michelle McGowen felt empowered to stand up to speak on her own initiative at least four times, sometimes inserting her opinion on an issue before Superintendent Ritz’s legal advisor had an opportunity to speak. During a discussion of the A-F grading system, the Governor’s advisor rose to give her opinion, and presumably the Governor’s opinion, that the current flawed A-F system created by Dr.Bennett should be used for three more times, for data from 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. As you know from my previous “Notes”, I don’t think it deserves to be used even one more time.

Apparently neither the Governor nor Michelle McGowen have heard from all those across Indiana who were hurt by the new flawed system and its norm-referenced bonuses. Maybe they will start hearing soon from school leaders who are eager for a new system now and were hopeful for a quick exit from the current plan after legislators passed a law saying a new system should be in place by November 15, 2013, just six weeks from now.

In this new era, public school advocates need to put the Governor and his State Board staff on the list of people to contact regarding the flaws of the current A-F system.

Opening Arguments

Scott Elliott in the Oct. 4th Indianapolis Star described the contentious debate over the agenda that started the meeting. His description was good as far as it went, but he left out the response of Superintendent Ritz to Mr. Elsener and Mr. Walker, who had both wanted agenda changes. She reminded them that under the “Shared Governance Agreement” negotiated with the Governor’s office at the start of her term, agenda items are to be submitted ten days in advance of the meeting and last minute changes to the agenda are left to the discretion of the chair. All board members were aware of these rules and had voted to implement them several months ago, although Mr. Walker took the opportunity to lament that they had done so.

Obviously, setting the agenda is an indicator of power, and several individual state board members would like more power and would like to assign less power to State Superintendent Ritz.

Hear Glenda Ritz on October 5th

Glenda Ritz will be the featured speaker at the Indiana Coalition for Public Education fall membership meeting in Lafayette tomorrow, Saturday, October 5th at 2:00pm. You can come to hear her comments on this issue and other key issues: voucher implementation, a new A-F system, the settlement with CTB McGraw Hill on ISTEP+ testing and many others. Please join us in this meeting for all ICPE members and prospective members at the Tippecanoe County Library, 627 South Street, Lafayette, from 2:00 to 3:30pm.

Although no RSVP is necessary, if you can come on Saturday to show support for Glenda Ritz and ICPE, replying to this message would help us with the count.

Please join us on Saturday to help support public education in Indiana!

Best wishes,

Vic Smith

ICPE is working to promote public education and oppose privatization of schools in the Statehouse. We hope all members and prospective members will come to the membership meetings this fall, the second of which is Saturday, October 5th, 2-3:30pm at the Tippecanoe County Library, 627 South Street in Lafayette. Glenda Ritz is the featured speaker. At the meeting you can renew your membership for the 2013-14 membership year which began July 1st if you have not done so already.

To all who have recently renewed or supported our fundraiser in Bloomington, we say thank you! We need additional support to carry on our advocacy for public education. We need additional members and additional donations. We need your help!

Go to www.icpe2011.com for membership and renewal information and for full information on our three ICPE membership meetings this fall. Thanks!

Some readers have asked about my background in Indiana public schools. Thanks for asking! Here is a brief bio:

I am a lifelong Hoosier and began teaching in 1969. I served as a social studies teacher, curriculum developer, state research and evaluation consultant, state social studies consultant, district social studies supervisor, assistant principal, principal, educational association staff member, and adjunct university professor. I worked for Garrett-Keyser-Butler Schools, the Indiana University Social Studies Development Center, the Indiana Department of Education, the Indianapolis Public Schools, IUPUI, and the Indiana Urban Schools Association, from which I retired as Associate Director in 2009. I hold three degrees: B.A. in Ed., Ball State University, 1969; M.S. in Ed., Indiana University, 1972; and Ed.D., Indiana University, 1977, along with a Teacher’s Life License and a Superintendent’s License, 1998

Karen Francisco: "We're All in This Together"

We are reposting the text of Karen Francisco's general session remarks to ISBA/IAPSS (School Board/Superintendent's Association) fall conference, Sept. 24, 2013. While this is long, it is well worth your time to read because it explains so much of what has happened to public education in Indiana. When you have finished reading it, please send Karen a thank you for all that she does to shine a light on education.

"Thank you so much for asking me to speak today. I have to admit this is a bit disconcerting. Those of you in the audience are usually the people that I’m calling and that I’m hoping will talk. This experience is throwing me off a little bit.

When I’m asked to speak to groups on the subject of education, I like to note the distinction that I am an editorial writer – I write opinion, sometimes my own under my byline, often the opinion of The Journal Gazette editorial board. That’s different from the role of reporters, who are expected to remain neutral. It is an important distinction, however.

The other point I want to make is that I’m speaking today with the full knowledge and support of my publisher, Julie Inskeep, and my editor, Craig Klugman.

Two years ago I spoke to the Indiana Coalition for Public Education and some of my remarks were quoted in a column by Dan Carpenter of the Indianapolis Star. The next day, my editor received a call from the governor’s office. It was apparently an attempt to put me in a bad position with my boss.

Of course, Craig knew that I was speaking to the Indiana Coalition for Public Education and told the governor’s spokeswoman that he was aware of it and that my remarks were not a problem.

Now, I’m not sure what it says about the governor’s office, that speaking to a group of public education supporters would be viewed as subversive.

But I think it probably does say something profound about the very difficult environment in which Indiana public schools have operated for the past several years.

This audience certainly is in the position to know how difficult it has been, and also to know that the real story about your schools has not been told.

That’s what I’m hoping to help you with today -- How to rewrite the story of Indiana public education, or at least how to tell the rest of the story.

Some of you probably remember those old radio spots, where announcer Paul Harvey would offer a news item, pause for a commercial message and then deliver “the rest of the story.” They were entertaining stories, and their lasting effect is as a reminder that there’s often more to what a listener or reader is offered –- another side of the story.

That is certainly true for public education today. While schools always have been subject to claims that they were tougher or better “back in the day” – when people walked two miles uphill – to and from school.

But the criticism today isn’t fueled by nostalgia, but by outside forces – forces intent on painting public education in the worst possible light.

We hear endless references to the “failing public schools.” We hear administrators and teachers described as selfish and resistant to change. Recently, some critics have taken to calling public schools “government schools.” – as if they are horrible institutions in which no one would want find themselves or their children.

You’ve heard some criticism unique to Indiana schools -- some are “Taj Mahal schools” or they are failing schools where children need choices now because they “can’t wait” for things to improve.

And then we hear the lofty language of “choice” – scholarships, not vouchers. Tuition-free, not taxpayer-supported. Schools of choice, not government schools.

It’s very deliberate language from critics intent on controlling the message.

And how have they come to control the message about public education in Indiana? With 24-7 access to information, it would seem that people have every opportunity to learn about public schools – to hear about their successes, about the hard work educators are doing and the tremendous strides they are helping students make.

Unfortunately, that’s not the case. There are a number of reasons why, but to talk about the issues facing your business, it’s necessary to tell you a little bit about my business, because I think the two are irrevocably linked.

In fact, if there’s anyone who can relate to the tough climate public schools have operated in for the past few years -- - it’s those of us in the newspaper industry.

Here are some figures for you to think about – and they might resonate even more with those of you who have faced the difficult task of closing schools. In 1983, there were 1,701 daily newspapers in the United States. By 1993, the number had fallen by nearly 200. By 2003, it had decreased by more than 300. Today, there are about 1,375 daily newspapers in the U.S.

The loss of entire newspaper operations obviously means the loss of jobs, but it doesn’t come close to telling the whole story. At the remaining 1,300-plus newspapers, tens of thousands of jobs have been eliminated.

2008 was the most brutal year in journalism. A website called “Paper Cuts” tracks layoffs in our industry. There were 16,000 newspaper jobs eliminated in 2008, counting all areas of production.

In newsrooms alone, 17,600 jobs have disappeared since 2006. I don’t have a breakdown for Indiana newspapers, but I can tell you, having spent 30-plus years in Indiana journalism, that hundreds of newsroom jobs have been eliminated in this state – and they are unlikely ever to return.

So what does that have to do with Indiana public schools?

Well, it means, quite simply, that there are fewer storytellers. There are fewer education reporters to cover school board meetings. There are fewer reporters to write feature stories about outstanding teachers and fascinating new programs. There are fewer reporters to write about technology in the classrooms, or students excelling at college-level work.

It also means there are fewer sports reporters to cover cross country or wrestling or even the biggest football game on any given Friday night.

It means there are fewer community editors to handle honor rolls or spelling bee winners or marching band results.

It means, in short, that much of the everyday good news about public schools is not being reported – the kind of news that in years past connected residents to their schools and made them proud to support them – even if they no longer had children enrolled there.

Unfortunately if a newspaper or TV station looks closely at a public school these days, it’s for a response to ISTEP+ scores, or for comments on budget cuts or some sort of alleged scandal.

Another reason the success stories of public schools are going unreported is that Indiana residents and everyone else have found other ways to read the news they want. Instead of picking up the morning paper or tuning into the local 6 o’clock news, they log onto Facebook, or check their Twitter feeds.

If a mutual friend is urging them to vote against the local school referendum, that’s all they need to know. Or, if a Facebook friend has posted a story about a superintendent retiring with a six-figure benefits package, along with some derogatory comments, that’s all they need to know. If a Facebook friend is extolling the quality of her child’s private-school experience, that’s all they need to know.

Of course, none of this is a problem as far as the parents in your own school districts are concerned. Those who are closest to the schools are those who know them best, and they are pleased with the work being done there. Public opinion poll after public opinion poll tells us this.

The latest is the well-respected Phil Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll of the Public’s Attitudes Toward the Public Schools. If you haven’t looked at the results of this year’s survey, released just a month ago, you should.

Parents of public school students were asked to assign a letter grade to the school their oldest child attends. 71 percent of those surveyed gave a grade of A or B to their schools. That’s the highest percentage in 20 years, up from 68 percent in 2008.

Parents also believe their schools are safe. Asked if they fear for the physical safety of their oldest child while at school, 88 percent said no, compared to just 63 percent in 1998. Think about that – after Newtown, after Columbine – public school parents feel better about the safety of their schools.

But then there are the respondents who are NOT public school parents. Sixty-seven percent of those surveyed in the Phi Delta Kappa poll, in fact, do not have children in public schools.

Those 67 percent of residents – higher and lower percentages depending on where you live – are the primary targets of those who are painting public schools as inferior, as unsafe and wasteful.

They are counting on the growing influence of social media. They are counting on their ability to control the message. They are counting on the declining availability of local news coverage.

Who are “they”? Yes, I know it sounds a bit paranoid. But what’s that old saying? Just because you’re paranoid, that doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get you?

I think public school supporters should take that to heart.

I mentioned my editor, Craig. He’s sort of a gruff, old-school type, who spent quite a few years in Chicago journalism. One thing he stresses endlessly: Follow the money.

For those of you in public education, follow the money likely means following it to that “reset button” pushed in 2009, when $300 million disappeared and has never been returned. It means following the tens of thousands or even millions your school district is losing to property tax caps. It might mean following the thousands of dollars lost with each child who withdraws from your district and enrolls in a parochial or charter school.

In my case, there’s been lots of money to follow. There the money spent on charter schools operated by for-profit education management companies. In one case, I’ve followed the money from Indiana taxpayers to a real estate investment trust in Kansas City. This real estate investment trust, which also owns a couple of charter school properties here in Indianapolis, has holdings in megaplex theaters, ski resorts, water parks, vineyards and public charter schools. It brings to mind that old “Which one of these is not like the others, right?”

In 2011, Indiana taxpayers spent more than $3.2 million in rent – that’s rent -- on just four Indiana charter school properties owned by this real estate investment trust in Kansas City. The company earned nearly $85 million in profits in 2010. Its triple net lease agreement makes the tenant – essentially Indiana taxpayers – responsible for maintenance costs, utilities, insurance and taxes.

In the case of one of the Indianapolis schools, 22 percent of its budget was going to building costs, even as the governor’s office criticized traditional public schools for capital projects and pushed for more dollars to the classroom.

In following the money, I also followed the frequent out-of-state travel the previous state superintendent of public instruction made in 2011. It was a victory lap, of sorts, beginning right after the school voucher bill was approved, signed and kissed – literally—by the governor. And if you don’t believe me, check the YouTube video – it’s the first state law I’ve ever seen signed with a kiss.

Superintendent Tony Bennett traveled across the country multiple times to boast of Indiana’s success in passing a voucher law. When I submitted FOIA requests for travel records and emails related to the trips, I was stonewalled – told that I was not requesting material with “sufficient particularity.”

I was told that records did not exist.

I was told that a staff member who handled the records had just left and there was confusion as to where the information could be found.

I was also told, interestingly, that my requests should not distract the staff from the department’s work. When I asked how the out-of-state travel might be distracting the superintendent and his top aides from their work, I was told it did not; they were busy in crafting rules on vouchers, teacher evaluations and the school A-F system.

We now know, of course, they weren’t having a great deal of success with that A-F system, and that they were spending some time on re-election work, as well.

Where it’s most difficult to ignore the troubling signs, however, is in following the millions of dollars in campaign contributions. Contributions from groups with high-minded names like “Stand for Children Indiana” and the “American Federation for Children.”

If you follow Stand for Children Indiana in the campaign finance database you’ll learn that its physical address is in Portland, Ore.

Follow the contributions to Stand for Children and you’ll find that they came from the pro-school choice mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg, and from the head of the pro-voucher Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice.

And you’ll see that they flowed last year from Portland, Ore., to Indiana – to the campaign coffers of the former state superintendent, to the Speaker of the Indiana House, to the chairman of the House Education committee and to a Republican member of the Senate Education Committee. They flowed to a candidate who formerly was chief of staff for the Department of Education.

At least I think that’s where it went – the candidate is curiously misidentified – not once, but twice -- on the contribution reports. If you were to quickly search the reports to see if Stand for Children Indiana gave money to this candidate, you wouldn’t find it -- it doesn’t show up in a search of contributions by name. It’s only in carefully searching entire lists of contributions that you find it.

And if you work backward to follow the contributions on that Republican House member’s campaign finance report you’ll find that Stand for Children also is mysteriously misspelled, not once – but twice – as Stand for Childred – again, an error that would throw off a search by contributor.

By the way, voters in that representative’s Hamilton County district might want to ask how it is that a member of the House Education Committee can’t spell the word “children.”

Following the money linked to the American Federation for Children is where things become really interesting, and it’s where you begin to see how intricately connected the so-called school reform movement has become.

The American Federation for Children shows two addresses in campaign finance records. One is in the Washington suburb of Alexandria, Virginia – the other is in Terre Haute, the same address as the law offices of James Bopp. If you’re not familiar with James Bopp, he is a conservative activist, the former GOP national committeeman for Indiana and the legal muscle behind the controversial Citizens United ruling that has allowed unlimited corporate spending in federal elections.

The American Federation for Children is truly the engine in the school reform movement. And while its name suggests a huge, beneficent movement – it’s really a rather small group of uber-wealthy conservatives determined to push school voucher legislation in every state.

The American Federation for Children has contributed nearly three-quarters of a million dollars to Indiana candidates since 2010. With the exception of Tony Bennett, the money was funneled through other committees, primarily Hoosiers for Economic Growth.

Hoosiers for Economic Growth last year contributed more than $1.1 million to Republican Statehouse candidates who, in turn, continued to pass education reform bills, even though many of those same Republican candidates said before the election that it was time to take a break and see how earlier changes were working.

The most expansive school voucher program in the nation was expanded again this year. And now we know that some changes in budget language allowed the governor to create an entire new education agency, one that is essentially autonomous from the Department of Education and Superintendent Glenda Ritz.

The story of education reform in Indiana is so complex – so intertwined – that I’m not sure the rest of the story can easily be told to casual observers. But I would hope that those of you in this room are taking the time to untangle all of the threads.

In Indiana, there is a determined core of ed reformers whose names repeatedly come up, either as campaign contributors, or appointees to education-related boards. Seldom do these reformers have any real experience with public schools – not as educators, not as school board members – In some cases, not even as public school parents.

Remember how I told you my industry and yours are so closely tied? I believe that one factor in the attack on Indiana public schools was that newspapers were not performing the watchdog function that is the heart and soul of our First Amendment privilege. We let you down, quite honestly. Tough, investigative reporting fell by the wayside with newspaper staff cuts. My industry also fell for some of the same misleading charges that have convinced politicians. Solid education reporting was replaced by education reform reporting. Even after the failed experiments of open classrooms and site-based management and more, too few reporters were asking tough questions about unproven approaches.

Rahm Emanuel, President Obama’s former chief of staff – now the mayor of Chicago (and no friend of public education, by the way)– said “You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”

No where was that taken to heart as enthusiastically as Indiana. The state’s budget problems became a sort of battering ram at the door of public schools. Even before that giant reset button was hit and $300 million was cut, the state pushed through property tax “reform” -- there’s that word again – that essentially gutted local control of public education. Authority you once had over your budgets and your enrollment is now gone. Anyone who objected – to the effects of property tax caps, or limits on capital budget spending or anything else – was criticized as “protecting the status quo” or worse, putting adults before children.

This was the work of very determined, very clever politicians – Politicians who have been on record for decades as critics of Indiana public schools. They used the recession -- a crisis – as an opportunity to pass laws they had sought for many years. Over time, the policies they’ve pushed will fail, but you and other public education supporters can’t wait for that to happen.

Now, it’s the rest of the story that needs to be told, and what I hope you’ll take from my remarks today, is what really is happening in public schools today. It’s not the story of children trapped in failing schools, held hostage by adults protecting their turf and the status quo.

Telling the rest of the story is truly a case of speaking truth to power.

We saw a very good example of it just about a year ago, when the A to F grades were issued and some brave public school superintendents spoke up to question not the results, but the formula itself.

Now we know the formula might have been “plausible,” but we also know that it was contrived. Don’t believe for a moment that the study of the A-F formula released a couple of weeks ago vindicated or exonerated anyone. That’s the political spin put on it by people embarrassed to have defended it, but you don’t choose a word like “plausible” if you are attempting to clear the air.

In fact, the legislative charge for the study very intentionally directed the authors of the study NOT to investigate the motive behind the grade change. And the recommendations for how a grading system should be established are so contrary to what currently exists that it’s clear the authors didn’t intend to endorse it any fashion.

In telling the rest of the story, it’s important to remind legislators again and again that public school administrators raised the initial questions. And while those legislators are now quick to tell everyone that they already had ordered the system revised – even before Christelgate – the fact is that they wouldn’t have done it on their own.

Another way to tell the rest of the story about public education is to challenge the narrative of failing public schools. If you’re not sure how, I would point you to the work of Vic Smith. I know that many of you here know Vic. He spent 40 years in education, retiring as associate director of the Indiana Urban Schools Association in 2009. As a school board member or superintendent, you should be familiar with the research he has done tracking the progress of Indiana schools. It amounts to 23 years of progress:

Rising attendance rates. Graduation rates. SAT verbal and math scores. ACT composite scores. NAEP scores. ISTEP+ scores. The percentage of Indiana high school graduates going to college. The percentage of Indiana graduates earning an academic honors diploma.

All of these have steadily increased. Not just in the last year since vouchers were approved. Not just since charter schools were approved a decade ago and the competition was supposed to force traditional schools to improve.

No, these improvements that Vic Smith documents have been occurring steadily for 23 years. You need to share this information – you need to tell the rest of the story.

Another point you should make: As Indiana schools have been improving, economic and social conditions have been deteriorating. There have been reports in recent weeks about the dismal economic progress Hoosiers have made.

A Ball State study found that the average per capita income statewide is at a 1996 level. In some counties, it’s much worse – lagging the rest of the nation by 30 years.

The poverty piece can’t be ignored when talking about education. Figures from the Annie E. Casey Foundation’s latest Kids Count report show that in 2010, the food insecurity rate for children was nearly 23 percent. That’s nearly one in four Indiana children living in households where the availability of food is uncertain, insufficient or limited due to economic, physical or other constraints. That’s appalling, and it’s not the fault of public schools.

In 2011, 23 percent of Indiana children lived in poverty. Again, an appalling figure. For many years, Indiana’s child poverty rate was lower than the national average, but it has matched or surpassed the national figure since 2009. Yet our political leaders continue to boast of some sort of an economic miracle in this state.

As public school leaders, you are on the front lines of seeing the effects of these dismal numbers. I can’t imagine that any public school district in the state is entirely immune from them, even if some see it to far greater effect.

Which brings me to an important point in sharing the rest of the story. One approach the school-reform crowd has used to great advantage is the divide-and-conquer tactic. As they have pushed anti-public education measures, they’ve succeeded by telling the legislators whose votes they need that their own district’s schools won’t be affected. Reform is for those “failing big-city schools,” they say. Yet they pass sweeping, statewide legislation that has effects on all schools.

I understand that your first obligation is to your own school districts – and you’ve certainly had enough placed on each of you to keep you busy responding to those issues.

But the fact is that protecting turf within suburban, urban and rural districts has had the effect of hurting all schools. And when any public school is struggling, that struggle becomes a weapon to use against all schools. When speaking on behalf of public education, the message should be that you’re all in this together.

And the message doesn’t have to be defensive. If you know anything about what I write, you probably know that I’m practically a broken record when it comes to the subject of early learning. I never miss an opportunity to point out Indiana’s embarrassing record in providing early childhood education. You all know how long it took to finally get full-day kindergarten in this state, but achieving that milestone still brought us up just to the back of the pack. Indiana is one of just 10 states that dedicate no state dollars toward preschool.

You can accept the argument that we’ve suffered through a recession, but consider that we managed to build a huge state budget surplus and pass along not only a tax refund, but also new tax breaks for businesses.

And the business community already is back looking for more – I received an op-ed article just last week from an economic development group calling for another tax deduction to be approved in the next legislative session – this one allowing manufacturers to take a deduction for domestic production.

I know that all of you are busy, but I haven’t received any op-eds from administrators or school board members calling for investment in early learning. Yet there’s an easy case to be made for it. After you’ve studied Vic Smith’s research on the success of Indiana public schools, look at James Heckman’s work on early learning.

He has this to say:

“Some kids win the lottery at birth, far too many don’t – and most people have a hard time catching up over the rest of their lives. Children raised in disadvantaged environments are not only much less likely to succeed in school or in society, but they are also much less likely to be healthy adults. A variety of studies show that factors determined before the end of high school contribute to roughly half of lifetime earnings inequality. This is where our blind spot lies: success nominally attributed to the beneficial effects of education, especially graduating from college, is in truth largely a result of factors determined long before children even enter school.”

James Heckman is a Nobel Laureate in economics; he teaches at the University of Chicago. Heckman looks at early learning in terms of its value. That’s the rest of the story Indiana legislators and voters need to hear.

I don’t want to finish without giving you some very concrete tips on communicating with audiences beyond your own school communities. I know I didn’t paint an encouraging picture of your local newspaper, but don’t overlook it as an important part of telling your story.

Certainly, you have to respond when controversy arises or something bad happens, but there are ways to encourage local news outlets to tell their audiences more about schools. First, invite them to come and learn what’s new. When they write about it, make a point to thank the reporter, and the editor and publisher for the coverage. When it’s budget time and tough decisions have to be made, share the story behind it before your critics get the chance to control the message. If you’re hoping to pass a referendum, the local newspaper can be your best friend or your worst enemy. Make your case.

Finally, I want to end with some encouragement. I think there are better days ahead for public schools. I think the holes in the education reform story are growing larger every day, and I would like to think that good journalism – and good public policy involving public records – helped expose those holes.

A public radio reporter asked me recently if I call myself an “advocate” for public education. For someone who has spent years consciously avoiding labels of Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, it’s uncomfortable to describe myself as an advocate. But the more I thought of it, the more willing I was to accept the title.

Education historian Diane Ravitch had this to say about public education in her book, “The Death and Life of the Great American School System”:

“As a nation, we need a strong and vibrant public education system. As we seek to reform our schools, we must take care to do no harm. In fact we must take care to make our public schools once again the pride of our nation. Our public education system is a fundamental element of our democratic society. Our public schools have been the pathway to opportunity and a better life for generations of Americans, giving them the tools to fashion their own life and to improve the commonweal. To the extent that we strengthen them, we strengthen our democracy.”

I hope you’ll join me in claiming the title of advocates for public education and help me to tell the rest of the story of the Great Indiana School System."

If you appreciate the outstanding reporting that Karen Francisco does, and if you appreciate the support that the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette gives to public education, please write them a thank you to let them know how important their work is to all of us.

• Karen Francisco (kfrancisco@jg.net) editorial page editor
• Craig Klugman (cklugman@jg.net) editor
• Julie Inskeep (jinskeep@jg.net) publisher

~~~