Missing the Mark in Education Reform

This three minute excerpt is the second part of a talk by Joshua Katz. We'll post the last 2 parts over the next few weeks. Watch the full length original, TheToxic Culture of Education, at www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnC6IABJXOI#t=84

Text for above from Opt Out Orlando (not an exact transcript).

How can we possibly believe standardized testing accurately measures student achievement? How can it measure student growth? How can it measure that “a-ha” moment when a student’s light is finally lit? That moment when a student says “thank you” for helping him graduate with a 2.0 GPA? That moment when a student athlete works hard in study hall and finally gets a C in her class because her coach helped? How can we attach a number to that moment when a 5th grader finally has the ability to write his own name (who is labeled a failure for himself, his teacher, AND his school)? But we crave education standardization, we believe we need high stakes testing, and we eat up misinformation provided by companies using test results with no validity.

Our testing culture begins in elementary school. Colleagues of mine deal with third graders who are suffering from anxiety for standardized testing. From a one-day, 4 hour, computer-based test, the future path of the student is set, the academic identity is established, and the message is delivered loud and clear: either you CAN make it, or you CAN’T make it. No matter what the teacher tells them about how good they are or what talents they have, if they don’t score well on that test, they know what it means. They define themselves. In the third grade. It’s starting to happen in kindergarten.

So these students continue testing, continue failing, and the districts continue new initiatives that can solve the problem. Who makes these products? Who has these solutions? Our super villain. Companies like Pearson and McGraw Hill which operate on legislation and policy written by private lobbying groups like ALEC. Buy the next textbook, the next workbook, the next software package. I’ve been through four Algebra textbooks in seven years. And that’s where the schools and districts are spending all the money. And we stick to the standardized test (guess who makes those?).

We illogically attempt to compare education to business, we ignore the impact of poverty and hunger, we pay no attention the non cognitive factors that are realistic predictors and measures of student success, and that way, we can place the blame on the teachers and schools. And because we have a Toxic Culture of Education, policies, teachers, and schools have accepted accountability for students, including all THOSE students. We take the blame for a student that has no moral compass. We take the blame for a student that cannot focus because he hasn’t eaten since yesterday’s lunch. We take the blame for a student that cannot stay awake in class because she spends her nights on a different couch, depending on which friend takes her in. When those students don’t “score well”, we get blamed. And we take it. We accept it. Because we love the kids. We are the only ones protecting them from this Toxic Culture of Education.

And what do we do as a system? Our only interest in education “reform” is to create policies that include additional standardized testing, to place higher stresses on teachers and students, and continue the picture of failure so private companies can sell the answer. And all this ignores highly publicized and easily available data on effective policy-making and effective practices. And it’s about to get worse. The Common Core will do more damage its high-stakes test (not to mention its myopic standards masked in a guise of “critical thinking” which is just developmentally inappropriate “rote”. I see my daughter’s work in the first grade. They ain’t fooling me). Any education reform that does not address high stakes testing and the non-cognitive factors of true student achievement, like character and personal habits, is a waste of time and it kills our kids.

Joshua Katz is a high school math teacher in Orange County, FL.

###

Outrageous Shortcut to Teaching

NEIFPE member Terry Springer responds to REPA III.

I am outraged by the proposal to grant a short cut into teaching that the State Board of Education is now considering. I think I speak with some authority since I hold both a B.A. and M.A. in English and also took the education courses required to earn my license as a teacher in Indiana.

Having a B.A. in English gave me knowledge about literature, writing, and grammar, but it in no way prepared me to teach high school students - and especially struggling students - how to read and analyze novels, poems, essays nor to write about them. I loved my college English classes, but they did not teach me how children learn nor what I needed do to facilitate that learning. The education courses including student teaching did. I still struggled the first year because teaching five classes each with 30 or more students is challenging. That is at least 150 individual personalities with different reading skills and interests. In what other profession, is one person expected to meet the needs of that many people in less than 300 minutes a day? But it is the profession I chose fully aware of the challenge I was accepting.

So I am outraged when the State Board of Education may adopt REPA 3 and grant a short cut to people who have a degree and take a test. I know that it sets the scene for our children to be guinea pigs for those who have not demonstrated that they can teach or that they really understand what will be required of them. They will not have to demonstrate that they can work with kids effectively. The premise that underlies such a program seems to be that having content knowledge supersedes being able to communicate it effectively. The people who want to become teachers in this way may be required to get training in the first two years, but that means that on the first day of school and the second and the third, these people will be flying by the seat of their pants.

Should we not question why anyone would want to take this shortcut?
Obviously, teaching was not their first choice in professions, and certainly, most other professions pay better than teaching. So what motivates these people? Is it not being able to find a job in their chosen profession? Is it the result of downsizing in their previous employment?

There is a system in place for people who want to enter the teaching profession after being in a different profession. It's called Transition to Teaching and those with college degrees in other areas can take classes and do student teaching and thus come into the profession with some understanding of what teaching really involves, of how to teach and of how to manage a classroom. In short, they will have gone through the process of becoming a teacher. Isn't that process required in the education of engineers, doctors, lawyers, psychologists, biologists, accountants? Aren't most college students required to do internships in addition to their classes? Who would go to a doctor who has a degree in English who took a test and was awarded temporarily the right to diagnose health problems and prescribe treatment while he or she got the training to read the results of a blood test or an x-ray in night classes?

Should the State Board of Education pass this short cut, there is a simple way to deal with the people who enter teaching under REPA 3. First, don't hire them. Districts can choose to hire only those who possess conventional teaching licenses awarded because of their degrees and certifications earned in accredited universities. Second, parents can demand that the teachers of their children be licensed in this way. Parents should be vigilant and ask for the credentials of their children's teachers. If the teacher does not possess these credentials, parents can demand that their children be placed with a different teacher.

This demand may be difficult; however, under such circumstances, both the State Board of Education and the school district will have failed in the responsibility to insure to the best of their abilities that qualified teachers are in the classroom.

Do you agree? Click to contact Indiana State Board of Education members.

###

Vic’s Statehouse Notes #179 – May 21, 2014

[NOTE: You can contact State Board of Education Members by clicking on this link: http://www.in.gov/sboe/2396.htm]

Dear Friends,

On May 14th, the State Board of Education in a close 6-5 vote made a fundamental error in lowering the standards teachers for a teaching license in Indiana. Indiana doesn’t need lower standards for teachers.

By the Board’s close vote, the concept is still alive in the REPA 3 package of licensing rules to allow graduates with no teacher training or student teaching to get a two-year renewable license to teach secondary students in Indiana.

After noting the discussion points below, I urge all advocates for strong public schools to contact their State Board member and all State Board members to register your surprise that the idea of giving a teaching license to untrained teachers is still alive in REPA 3. We need to maintain our current standards for teachers and not to lower them.

Proposed by Dr. Bennett in 2012, the pathway to a teacher license without first studying how to teach is still alive.

REPA 3 Discussion at the May 14th Meeting

Jill Shedd of the Association for Teacher Education – Indiana and Keith Gambill of the ISTA started the meeting with public comments opposing the Adjunct Teaching license. Both articulately explained that Emergency Licenses, Advanced Degree Licenses and Transition-to-Teaching Licenses provide all the flexibility and alternative licensing pathways that administrators or future teachers need.

After considerable discussion which included changing the name from “Adjunct Teacher” to “Career Specialist”, Superintendent Ritz moved to strike consideration in REPA 3 of the Adjunct Teacher license which could provide a renewable license to graduates who have had no teacher training or student teaching. After a lengthy debate and a roll call vote, the motion to strike failed 5-6.

Proponents: Six Votes For the Adjunct License Proposal

Of the six votes for retaining the Adjunct license concept, three were appointed by Gov. Daniels: Dan Elsener, B.J. Watts and Tony Walker. Three were appointed by Gov. Pence: David Freitas, Andrea Neal and Gordon Hendry.

Proponents glamorized this proposal as a new pathway for teachers. Dan Elsener said we should “respect superintendents.” He said, as quoted in Eric Weddle’s story in the Indianapolis Star (May 15, 2014, pA10), “I like opening up the field. I think it is opening another option, and no one has to do this. The quality and type of training in a professional growth program is a local option. If they find a new and better mousetrap to develop a teacher, I like that innovation.”

I imagine the teacher training programs of Indiana really love to be compared to “mousetraps.” He also seems unaware that funding for local professional development programs is a huge problem since the state zeroed out its professional development budget four years ago.

Andrea Neal pointedly demanded to see the research that teacher training programs did a better job in prepping teachers than on-the-job mentorships.

I imagine that same question was asked by naysayers in 1918 when my first alma mater became Ball State Teacher’s College.

Have the 100 years of experience in training teachers in Indiana been worthless? Some want our citizens to think so. I certainly disagree.

Brad Oliver, in response, asked Andrea Neal for the research that a simple mentorship program would be as effective as a teacher training program. Later Board Member Neal cited a study that she said favored mentoring, not indicating whether the study was about mentoring that was completed before the first class was taught, which is the point of this controversy.

Opponents: Five Votes Against the Adjunct License Proposal

Of the five votes to strike the Adjunct license concept, two were appointed by Gov. Daniels: Cari Whicker and Sarah O’Brien. Two were appointed by Gov. Pence: Brad Oliver and Troy Albert. The latter two are the only members of the board with significant public school experience in hiring secondary teachers. The fifth vote was by Superintendent Ritz.

Brad Oliver led off the discussion expressing his opposition. He said as a former member of the Professional Standards Board, he could not support the Adjunct concept. The Star quoted him as well: “We are the last gateway to make sure that anybody that is in front of a child has had at least modern similarity of standards. I am not saying they have to go through a full program to get into the classroom… but how do we ensure quality and what are the quality controls that people in front of our students are well prepared?”

He said if there were no current “flexibility”, he might support this step, but he cited the three current pathways to alternative licensing as sufficient. He called the Adjunct proposal an “unregulated alternative pathway to what we already have,” one in which principals would make the decision about allowing an untrained teacher to get an initial license.

Later he cited the General Assembly’s work to make teacher education programs more accountable by tracking the outcomes of their graduates. He said that trend doesn’t square with this move to let untrained teachers get a license.

He has accurately described the huge disconnect between closer regulation of teacher preparation by the General Assembly led by Senator Banks and deregulation of teacher preparation via this move by the State Board.

Troy Albert emphatically said that the Adjunct proposal is “repetitive in my opinion. Going further would be a mistake.” He said that already every person who wants to teach can get in through one of the existing pathways.

Cari Whicker emphasized the importance of student teaching and said teachers should have some pedagogy training before teaching.

Analysis

What is new in the flawed proposal to lower standards is that a two-year license would be issued to teachers prior to any pedagogical training and to any student teaching. Every experienced teacher knows that the most important hour of any class they are teaching is the first hour when rules and expectations of the class are made clear. The tone and standards of the class are set. A new teacher has to be ready for Day One or the productivity of the class may be damaged for the enter semester. This proposal overlooks that crucial point.

It also overlooks the way principals rely on the track record from student teaching and from teacher training to hire the best teachers. Members of the State Board who favored this flawed proposal spoke glowingly of the freedom principals will have to select new talent for their school. As a former principal, I can tell you that principals are too busy to independently investigate the abilities of teaching candidates who do not have any record of teacher training. Selecting such a person would be an inappropriate gamble. We should not experiment with the education of Hoosier students. We should continue to require all who stand before a classroom on the first day of school to be trained and ready to teach.

Finally, the State Board’s proposal sends a disrespectful message to all currently licensed secondary teachers, telling them that this board thinks that they didn’t really need to study teaching and pedagogy to be successful teachers and that learning about child development, curriculum, assessment, differentiated instruction and cultural differences can easily be learned on the job as the school days roll on.

Current college students may fall into the trap of thinking that they can easily be successful teachers without a serious study of how to teach. We need new teachers who have made a commitment. This experiment with our students ignores over 100 years of experience with teacher training in Indiana at our institutions of higher learning, experience which tells us that the best teachers are well-trained teachers who are ready from Day One.

What You Can Do

It is heartening to think that in 2012 there were only two votes against the Adjunct Teacher proposal and now there are five. One more vote is needed when the final language comes back to the State Board for approval in June or July.

There seems to be no pattern in the voting based on instructions from Governor Pence. The Pence appointees voted 3-2 against striking the Adjunct concept, and the Daniels appointees also voted 3-2 against. This suggests that every member is voting based on personal experience and may be persuaded by advocacy before the next vote.

It is notable that all five of the opponents are veteran teachers or school administrators, while of the six proponents of the Adjunct concept, three have no K-12 teaching experience.

I urge you to contact State Board members on this issue. Let them know that you think the alternative pathways we now have are flexible and sufficient and that we should never allow a teacher to get a license and teach students without any pedagogical training or any student teaching. That is simply not right.

Your messages on behalf of public education make a big difference. Thanks for participating! Please keep up your steadfast support of public schools!

Best wishes,

Vic Smith

ICPE has worked since 2011 to promote public education in the Statehouse and oppose the privatization of schools. The 2014 session of the General Assembly is now over. Joel Hand did an excellent job representing ICPE throughout the session. We need your membership to help pay the bills for ICPE lobbying efforts. Many have renewed their memberships already, and we thank you! If you have not done so since July 1, the start of our new membership year, we urge you to renew by going to our website.

We have raised the needed money in past sessions, and we must do so again. We need additional members and additional donations. We need your help and the help of your colleagues who support public education! Please pass the word!

Go to www.icpe2011.com for membership and renewal information and for full information on ICPE efforts on behalf of public education. Thanks!


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

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

###

The Myths and Realities of "Failing" Schools

This five minute excerpt is the first part of a talk by Joshua Katz. We'll post the next 3 parts over the next few weeks. Watch the full length original, TheToxic Culture of Education, at www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnC6IABJXOI#t=84

Text for above from Opt Out Orlando (not an exact transcript).

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.” -Albert Einstein

So, there I was, working with a student, Natalie, on solving equations. She had to multiply 2 times 9 and was stuck. No joke, my students get stuck on that. So, I decided to go for the teaching moment. 2 times 9. All she had to do was count by 2, nine times, that was it. She tried and failed three times, on paper and on fingers, in both English and Spanish, her native tongue. THREE TIMES Natalie is 16. In the ninth grade. And she is NOT ALONE. NOT BY A LONG SHOT.

I teach at a high school with a student population of over 3,000. It is only one of over 30,000 high schools in the United States. You have to somehow begin to wrap your head around the enormity of the number of Natalies in our schools, in our country, in our future.

I’ve seen the best of the school system. I can honestly say that our best students can compete with the best students from around the world. In fact, when looking at the data from PISA results that compares our students to other countries we rank in the 20’s, BUT…if we separate it out by district poverty level, and look at the US districts that have comparable poverty rates to the other countries, it is clear that our students are at or near the top in the comparisons. But our highest performing students are only a small percentage of our overall population, even in the honors classes.

But what about the Natalies?

I have specialized in teaching Algebra to the lowest-ranked 25% of high school students, and I work mostly with THOSE students.

The best of THOSE want to do well, but when they finally realize how capable they are, they find themselves either stuck in a path of academic mediocrity or they are so close to graduation that all they need is their credit to pass. It’s a scene of wasted potential.

The worst of THOSE have had no education of character, common decency, appropriate language and behavior, or right from wrong. By high school, they are so ingrained in their behaviors of laziness, disruption, disrespect, and defiance that any measure of guidance is completely lost on them. These are the students on the path of dropping out, of incarceration, and abusing social welfare.

Parents will talk their children into purposefully failing tests so they can qualify for social security benefits, up to $800 per month per child. And these families find other sources of untaxed income, in the way of pharmaceutical sales. There is a LOT of abuse of social welfare, and the parents know how to milk the system for all it’s worth. This abuse is happening when people TRULY in need can’t get the help.

What’s out there waiting for THOSE students? Jobs? College? They are in an educational system that says “if you don’t go to college, you have no worth” so their alternative is to be underemployed, find illegal work, or abuse social security.

THOSE students are marginalized by what I call our “Toxic Culture of Education”. It doesn’t matter if a student is a gifted artist, a loving caretaker, a poetic writer, or a talented musician. THOSE students are the fish being measured on how they climb trees. We say the be all end all is college, or we leave students to the lowest skill level work (which, more and more, is being occupied by college educated people). Even with the honors students, they are, in general, too worried about grades and results, and not interested in true learning, which affects their performance in college. I don’t want to talk about the college student loan debt crisis.

But you have to believe me, I am not placing blame on them, yes they can take credit for who they are, but this is about something much larger than them. Our Toxic Culture began with a classic Super Villain Archetype. Recall any Super Villain, I focus on Syndrome from The Incredibles. The villain’s plan is to unleash a doom onto the world, and the villain is the only one that can stop it. Thus gaining all the desired power.

This is exactly what began before the 1980’s and culminated in No Child Left Behind. Private companies realized they could utilize the education system (at the time a $750 billion industry) to create a nearly endless stream of taxpayer funds. They channeled millions of dollars into lobbying efforts in order to create two buzzwords that put everything in its place: “Accountability” and “Rigor”. State statutes were passes, district rules were put into place, and No Child Left Behind was finally passed. But don’t get me wrong about politics, these efforts were underway long before they were passed, and both parties can take full credit for their disastrous results.

They decided to take the education system that produced the individuals, that put a man on the moon with technology less powerful than the phone in my pocket, and paint a picture of “failure” using the word “accountability”. You see, we only have one way to address accountability: Standardized Testing. So, we implement standardized testing, and it shows that schools are failing, teachers are failing, and students are failing. And when everything is failing, guess what we need? We need new textbooks, we need new resources, we need new training, we need charter schools, we need private schools. And who creates all these things we need? Private businesses. The only way to feed the business model in our Toxic Culture is to perpetuate the picture of failure. In fact, I’d LOVE to see any education company that has a business model that is built upon success. There is no money in student success.

Joshua Katz is a high school math teacher in Orange County, FL.

###

Vic’s Election Notes on Education #19– May 3, 2014

Dear Friends,

Representative Behning is now running an amazing number of expensive negative TV ads against Michael Scott in the last days of the campaign. He apparently believes that one week of negative ads can make up for his egregious actions against public education since the voters last elected him two years ago.

Michael Scott apparently does not have money to run TV ads of his own. If the voters of District 91 decide to choose Michael Scott as their representative in the Indiana House, it will be because they have become aware of Representative Behning’s multiple actions against public schools, such as his drive to pass House Bill 1337 in the 2013 session:

For 14 years since passage in 1999, Indiana’s school accountability system known as Public Law 221 remained stable, respected by the legislature for its bipartisan origins. In 2013, Representative Behning ignored that line of respect and took it upon himself to introduce House Bill 1337 to alter PL221 for the first time without broad support.

His fellow Republicans found House Bill 1337 to be overly extreme and actually voted it down, a strong rebuke by his own party.

Then in a last minute Conference Committee bill which is not required to get a full public hearing, he passed a scaled back revision of Public Law 221 which most notably put A through F school labels in law, a controversial move that took the decision about how to label our schools away from the educators on the State Board of Education.

Initially, his bill even provided for the state to take over local school boards based on our flawed A-F school grading system.

Do the voters he represents in District 91 endorse his efforts like House Bill 1337 to flag more schools for state takeover from local school boards and to make Indiana’s accountability system more punitive?

I doubt it. Republicans in the legislature didn’t.

This is the time voters can have their say.

Michael Scott, a conservative Republican challenger, stands as an alternative to Representative Behning in the May 6th Republican primary election.

He opposes Representative Behning’s efforts which have hurt public schools, and despite the barrage of negative TV ads that Representative Behning has started with funds from wealthy backers who support private school vouchers, Michael Scott gives voters on May 6th a good alternative if they believe that Representative Behning has just gone too far in harming public education.

Does District 91 want to be represented by an opponent or a supporter of public education? The choice is clear, and the choice is in the hands of the voters on May 6th.

[Please note: Indiana Code 3-14-1-17 says that government employees including public school employees may not “use the property of the employee’s government employer to” support the “election or defeat of a candidate” and may not distribute this message “on the government employer’s real property during regular working hours.” Ironically, the law does not prevent private school employees from using computers purchased with public voucher money to distribute campaign materials. Private schools now financed in part by public voucher dollars have retained all rights under Indiana’s voucher laws to engage in partisan political campaigns.]

Public Law 221: The Foundation of Accountability

Public Law 221 is not well known to the public but is certainly well known to educators. It is the basis for school ratings and state takeovers and has been a stable policy for over a decade during a period of steady improvement in Indiana’s educational outcomes.

Representative Behning decided in 2013 to change it and introduced House Bill 1337 which put more schools in line for quicker state takeover, taking them away from local school boards. It added science into the high stakes testing equations by 2014-15 without a budget to do so. It also made takeover schools independent with the status of a new small school district run by unelected boards, contradicting recent efforts to consolidate small school districts into bigger districts.

His own Republican caucus found his proposal to be over the top. When the vote came on the House floor after a desperate and unusual third reading amendment, 31 Republicans joined 30 Democrats to give Representative Behning a rare outright defeat.

Salvaging His Revision

Representative Behning found a way to salvage a scaled down version of his Public Law 221 revision by attaching it to another last minute bill that the Governor was backing, House Bill 1427. His biggest change was to put in law that schools would be labeled with A through F letter grades, a controversial labeling of schools that stakeholders have argued about for a decade. His swift move at the end of the session took the decision about labeling out of the hands of the educators on the State Board of Education.

My biggest gripe was that the way he did it, there was no opportunity for a public hearing on how to label our schools such as the hearings bills get during the regular part of the session. This was a major change affecting our schools that he handled in an arbitrary manner because he had the power to do so.

Representative Behning would no doubt prefer that the voters forget about House Bill 1337 and listen to his shrill ads against his opponent, ads that as I have watched have not even mentioned education. House Bill 1337, of course, came in the same session as his bill favoring expanded private school vouchers. His efforts against public schools in the past two years have been over the top.

It is time for a change.

Public education advocates in District 91 have a candidate in Michael Scott who will support public education.

Please support Michael Scott in the May 6th primary election for the District 91 seat in the Indiana House. His website for more information or to support his campaign with a donation is:

http://michaelscottforindiana.nationbuilder.com

The May 6th election is now upon us. Be sure to vote! Thanks for working to support public education!

Best wishes,

Vic Smith

There is no link between “Vic’s Election Notes on Education” and any organization. Please contact me at vic790@aol.com to add an email address or to remove an address from the distribution list.

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

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

###

Vic’s Election Notes on Education #18– May 2, 2014

Dear Friends,

Senator John Waterman has been a friend of public education, voting against private school vouchers in the historic 2011 vote and again in the vote to expand vouchers in 2013.

He is being challenged in the May 6th Republican primary by Eric Bassler, who has been endorsed by two prominent pro-voucher groups.

Advocates for public education in District 39 composed of Daviess, Sullivan, Greene and Martin counties and portions of Clay, Knox and Owen counties should know that Senator Waterman stood up for public education in the most difficult votes of our generation and now needs help in the primary education.

Turnout is key to this primary election. Public education advocates in District 39 need to turn out to vote for Senator Waterman in this highly contested primary race on May 6th in order to retain a Senator who has courageously supported public education and now is being attacked for doing so.

The Biggest Educational Question of our Generation

Whether to give public money to private schools has been the biggest educational question of our generation. The question came to a vote in Indiana in House Bill 1003 in 2011, sponsored by Representative Behning with the strong support of Governor Daniels and State Superintendent Bennett.

I strongly opposed passage of the voucher program based on three broad concerns. Vouchers promised to 1) entangle state funding with religious education in private schools; 2) subsidize private schools and their partisan political activities which remain perfectly legal under voucher laws; and 3) shift millions in public money away from the education of the one million public school students, siphoning public dollars to private schools. This year in 2013-14, the amount shifted has risen to $81 million, $50 million due to students who transferred out of public schools with a voucher and $31 million due to students who have always been in private schools and are now funded by public dollars.

In 2011, when HB 1003 passed the House after a committee hearing that lasted nine hours over two days, I and others sought Senators who would listen to our belief that public schools would be damaged by the voucher program. Senator Waterman listened to our concerns.

We found nine Republican Senators who responded to our pleas to protect public education and to vote against the voucher bill. Senator Waterman was one of the nine. The vote was 28 to 22 in favor. If we had found four more votes, the voucher bill would not have passed.
Others had told us that they were against it, but under great pressure from the Governor, they ended up voting for the bill. Senator Waterman resisted the pressure and stood up for public education. He deserves great recognition among public school advocates for his strong stance.

The Reprise in 2013: A Major Voucher Expansion

Representative Behning sponsored a major voucher expansion bill in 2013, designed to allow several categories of students who had never been in public schools to get a private school voucher, including siblings and disabled students. After it passed the House, we again sought Senators who would resist the expansion which would further harm funding for the one million students in public schools. Senator Waterman responded again and voted no on voucher expansion.

The vote this time was 27-23. Ten Republican Senators, including Senator Waterman, found the courage to oppose the Governor on behalf of public education. Three Senators who had voted against vouchers in 2011 switched their vote and voted for vouchers in 2013. If these three had maintained their vote, the major voucher expansion would have been defeated. It was that close.

Senator Waterman did not waver. He stood up for public education on this crucial vote.

The Choice for Public Education is Clear

It would appear that Senator Waterman is being pressed in the primary in large part because of his support of public education. Eric Bassler has been endorsed by a prominent voucher group, Hoosiers for Economic Growth, with a letter from Fred Klipsch, a long-time voucher supporter who leads the Hoosiers for Economic Growth Political Action Committee.

Then just this week, the Indiana chapter of Americans for Prosperity, funded by the billionaire Koch brothers, denounced Senator Waterman’s votes on education and announced an ad campaign against him. Both groups oppose Senator Waterman because he stood up for public education both in 2011 and 2013.

Public education advocates in District 39 have a friend in Senator Waterman. It is clear that his opponent would be a vote for further expansion of private school vouchers. The choice is clear.

What Can You Do?

Clearly, voucher groups would like to replace Senator Waterman with someone who will support voucher expansion. Public education advocates in Senate District 39 who want to retain a Senator who supports public education should go to work for Senator Waterman for the May 6th primary this Tuesday.

Public school advocates who live in District 39 and wish to vote in the Republican primary should become familiar with Senator Waterman’s support of public education and share this information with friends and family. Many primary elections have low turnouts, so a small group of supporters can make a big difference.

Public school advocates who live and vote elsewhere but want to support Senator Waterman can do two things. First, talk with friends and relatives who live in District 39, composed of Daviess, Sullivan, Greene and Martin counties and portions of Clay, Knox and Owen counties to seek their support for Senator Waterman.

Second, go to his Facebook page to support his campaign with a donation: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Waterman-for-Senate/302176070937

Retaining a courageous vote for public education in the Senate is important to halt the march toward privatization that the voucher groups want to see in the schools of Indiana.

Thanks for working to support public education!

Best wishes,

Vic Smith

There is no link between “Vic’s Election Notes on Education” and any organization. Please contact me at vic790@aol.com to add an email address or to remove an address from the distribution list.

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

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

###

Vic’s Election Notes on Education #17– April 29, 2014

Dear Friends,

Advocates for public education in District 48 in Elkhart County should be aware that one candidate in the May 6th Republican primary for the open House seat is an enthusiastic proponent of expanding private school vouchers. Such an expansion would further damage public schools in Indiana.

Elections tell the General Assembly what the voters want. If public education is going to survive, we must not elect candidates that want to expand private school vouchers.

[Please note: Indiana Code 3-14-1-17 says that government employees including public school employees may not “use the property of the employee’s government employer to” support the “election or defeat of a candidate” and may not distribute this message “on the government employer’s real property during regular working hours.” Ironically, the law does not prevent private school employees from using computers purchased with public voucher money to distribute campaign materials. Private schools now financed in part by public voucher dollars have retained all rights under Indiana’s voucher laws to engage in partisan political campaigns.]

District 48 Candidates

I know that there are many public school advocates in Elkhart, which is my home town (Elkhart High School Class of 1965). Just two years ago, Representative Tim Neese was challenged in the primary election because he had supported public education and had voted against K-12 private school vouchers. He prevailed in District 48 and continued to support public education in the General Assembly sessions of 2013 and 2014. As he leaves to seek the Office of Mayor in next year’s municipal elections, he will always carry my respect and admiration for helping public schools on difficult votes.

There are three Republican candidates running for the open seat created by Representative Neese’s decision. This primary election will most likely decide who will come to the Statehouse from District 48 since no Democrats have entered the race.

In interviews reported by Tim Vandenack of the Elkhart Truth, attitudes of the three candidates about K-12 vouchers are clear. All quotes below are from stories by Tim Vandenack.

Jesse Bohannon, a teacher at a private alternative school called The Crossing, has said he would make voucher expansion a priority.
“Bohannon identified school vouchers as the big issue for him. He favors expanding the program for the K-12 school system, allowing more state funding earmarked for education to follow students, whether they attend public or private schools or are home-schooled.” (posted April 22, 2014 by Tim Vandenack)

Paying taxpayer-funded tuition for home-schooling would be a huge new expansion that has never been even introduced in the General Assembly. It would further decimate funding for public schools.

Adam Bujalski, a bank manager, does not support voucher expansion. “He’s OK with Indiana’s school voucher program, which provides grants to families up to a certain income threshold to send their kids to private schools. But he wouldn’t want to expand it, worried about the impact if even more funding were diverted away from public schools to families sending their kids to private schools. ‘I do agree with the income cut-off at some point because we can’t completely butcher our public schools as well,’ he said.” (posted April 3, 2014 by Tim Vandenack)

Doug Miller, who runs a home building firm, does not support K-12 voucher expansion but supports preschool vouchers. “He backs the state’s voucher program as is, which grants funding up to certain household income limits to families so parents can send their kids to private K-12 schools. He’d like to take it to the preschool level, as sought by Gov. Mike Pence, and as allowed, in limited form, in a pilot measure approved by lawmakers this year, House Enrolled Act 1004.” (posted April 1 by Tim Vandenack)

Conclusions for the May 6th Primary

Whether to give public money to private schools through vouchers is the biggest educational question of our generation. Based on the above public comments about this crucial issue, public school advocates in District 48 would oppose Jesse Bohannon and would choose between Adam Bujalski and Doug Miller who have both expressed support for the current system but not for an expansion.

At this point in the battle to protect public education, the clear preference is for those willing to resist an expensive expansion of K-12 vouchers which would further damage public schools. In the words of Candidate Bujalski: “We can’t completely butcher our public schools.”

The concern in District 48 on this issue is that “no voucher expansion” voters might split their votes between two candidates and allow the “enthusiastic voucher expansion” candidate to succeed.

In the tradition of democracy, the voters will sort out and answer all of these questions on May 6th to determine the future of public education in Indiana. I respect our democracy, and I respect the voters. Democracy works best when all participate. Be sure to vote!

Thanks for working to support public education!

Best wishes,

Vic Smith

There is no link between “Vic’s Election Notes on Education” and any organization. Please contact me at vic790@aol.com to add an email address or to remove an address from the distribution list.

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.

###