Vic’s Election Notes on Education #10– November 4, 2012

Dear Friends,

For advocates for public education, the choice in the gubernatorial race is clear. Only John Gregg can give Glenda Ritz a new State Board of Education to repair the flawed A-F system and to give education policies a new direction in support of public education in Indiana.

The Democrats, John Gregg for Governor and Vi Simpson for Lt. Governor, are both advocates for public education. In my direct observations in the Statehouse since I started watching the General Assembly in 1997, both have consistently voted to provide better funding for public schools. John Gregg as Speaker of the House and Vi Simpson as a leading member of the finance committee have been direct participants in building the school funding formula, and I came to know them both as true friends of public schools. Both have consistently voted against public money going to private school tuition via vouchers or tax credits. Vi Simpson was the leader of the Democrats in the Senate when all 13 Democrats voted against the 2011 voucher bill. It was not enough, but she spoke eloquently in support of public schools.

The Republicans, Mike Pence for Governor and Sue Ellspermann for Lt. Governor, are not advocates for public education. Mike Pence has made it clear he would not restore the $300 million cut from public school funding in the revenue crisis of December 2009. He voted for private school vouchers for Washington, DC, a highly controversial measure that barely passed Congress nearly a decade ago. Congress then ended the DC voucher program in the huge February 2009 stimulus bill. In tough budget bargaining after the 2010 elections, the resurgent Republican caucus brought DC vouchers back to life. Mike Pence has vocally supported vouchers throughout these legislative battles. He has endorsed an expansion of Indiana’s new voucher program and has said he wants to invest more money into it. The current voucher program was sold as a cost savings because to be eligible students must be in a public school first and then transfer to a private school. No doubt he would like to remove that restriction. Sue Ellspermann, in her only session as a member of the General Assembly, voted for the 2011 voucher law that I and many other public school advocates had strongly opposed.

For their support of public education, I support John Gregg for Governor and Vi Simpson for Lt. Governor.

The State Board of Education: Appointed by the Governor

The biggest impact John Gregg could have on correcting the direction of education in Indiana would be to bring us a new State Board of Education. The current board has two recent appointees, but the veterans on the board have a long record of ignoring stakeholders on key issues:

1. The April 2010 public hearing on whether schools should have letter grades attracted 57 speakers, and 56 opposed the plan. No member of the State Board was there to listen. A week later, the board voted with only one dissenting vote to have letter grades with no formula in place for how the grades would be determined.
2. The January 2012 public hearing on how the grades would be determined attracted 35 speakers, and they all opposed the plan, including the Indiana Chamber of Commerce and the Charter School Association. Only one member of the 11-member board was there to listen. Three weeks later, the board passed the controversial A-F system which undervalues our schools and hurts out-of-state job recruitment by giving 18% D’s and F’s while Florida, a state that Indiana outperforms on the National Assessment, gives 6% of its schools D’s and F’s.
3. The June 2012 public hearing on lowering the standards for teacher licensing, known as REPA 2, attracted 30 speakers, and they all opposed the plan. Only one member of the State Board was there to listen. They have conveniently put off the final vote on this controversial change until after the election.

Indiana needs a State Board of Education that will listen to the stakeholders when they have concerns. Absentee board members say they read the testimony, but that is no substitute for being there to listen in person to those who have driven to the hearing to express their concerns and, in some cases, their outrage.

We don’t have legislative hearings in the General Assembly without a quorum present. We need a State Board that attends public hearings. We need a State Board that listens to the people.

Historical Perspective

I have been totally amazed at the differences a decade has made in the State Board. After the new accountability plan (PL 221) was passed in 1999, the State Board held several hearings over a two year period before all parties came together to agree on a plan, the one that lasted from October 2001 until Tony Bennett dismantled it in February 2012. The State Board in 2001, appointed by Gov. O’Bannon, actually attended the hearings and listened. They withdrew proposed plans and started over at least twice before a final plan was agreed to by all. Dr. Reed and the State Board were acting as mediators between the business community and the education community to devise the best plan, and a compromise plan was finally reached in October 2001.

Now fast forward to 2012. The education community and the business community testified in agreement in January’s public hearing that the proposed A-F system was flawed. It didn’t matter. This State Board didn’t care to listen to stakeholders. They and Dr. Bennett had the votes, and they passed the A-F system that every speaker thought was defective. Only John Gregg can correct this injustice and reign in the State Board of Education from its policies which undervalue our schools and lower the standards for becoming a teacher in Indiana.

It’s Time to Vote

This is the last in my series of “Election Notes” because the election is two days away. The direction of public education in Indiana would improve remarkably if Glenda Ritz and John Gregg can be elected. There are still many things you can do in this grassroots campaign to bring victory:

1. Call people. Think of other friends and family across the state who may not have heard about these education issues. Give then a quick call on Monday.
2. Visit people. Going door-to-door to homes where they don’t know you is best done between 4pm and 6pm on Monday. Print off your Glenda Ritz handouts from the attachment and spend two more hours talking with neighbors. I was out Sunday afternoon and found an encouraging number of neighbors who have already heard of the problems Tony Bennett’s policies have caused for public schools.
3. Distribute Ritz handouts at a polling place on Tuesday. This is probably a self-appointed task because it’s a big state and the Ritz campaign can only organize people to do this in some locations. Copy off a supply of handouts and stand outside your favorite polling place for as many hours as you can arrange. Give a friendly invitation to all who come to vote to consider Glenda Ritz as you hand them a flyer. This can make a bigger difference in the election than you might think. I have done this at my polling place for several years, and each time I can count between 10 and 20 votes that I have influenced because I am a neighbor they know and I have information about a race they have not heard much about. Now consider what a 10 vote swing in every precinct in the state would mean in the totals. That is the potential. Go for it!

The future of public education in Indiana is at a crossroads in this election. Will we elect a leader who will continue down the road to privatization and for-profit takeover schools, or will we elect a leader who will focus public money on public schools and return common sense to grading schools and testing students?

This is a democracy, and we have our chance to influence this choice. I urge you to vigorously share your thoughts with voters for two more days, and then let the people speak. This election will set the path for education in Indiana for years to come.

Keep up the good work!
Best wishes,

Vic Smith

“Vic’s Election Notes on Education” is not linked to any organization and is not being distributed by me to any organization. It is only being distributed to those who have previously sent personal requests for my commentaries. If you want to pass it along to others, you do not need to ask my permission. If you want to be taken off the distribution list, just let me know. If you know of others who want to be added to the list, just send me an email.

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 #8– October 29, 2012

Dear Friends,

In Wednesday’s (Oct. 31st) State Board meeting where the A-F letter grades are to be approved and made public, the Public Comments section of the agenda has been moved to the end of the meeting.

Past practice for many years has been to take Public Comments at the beginning of the meeting, shortly after Board Member Comments, and before any business items.

Not this time. Apparently, they didn’t want people like me speaking about the flawed A-F system while all the media and TV crews were there to hear the A-F results. At the end of the meeting after all the business has been done and Public Comments begin, the media folks will be gone.

Nevertheless, I have heard many angry and frustrated educators in the past few weeks objecting to the way this A-F system demeans the reputation of excellent schools, and some school leaders or parent representatives may wish to share their story with the State Board during Public Comments, even if it is at the end of the meeting. State Board members themselves are often left out of the loop when schools complain to the IDOE about the substance of the grading system or about the procedures of the appeals. They often don’t hear about the enormous level of staff time, energy and resources needed to check the school grade data for accuracy and fairness. This is your chance to tell them about your ordeal. To speak, you must sign in before the meeting begins at 9am and observe a 5-minute limit.

Frustrations that I have heard recently from several districts include:

• Bright Pass + students who repeat as Pass +, scoring well above the cut score for Pass +, who inexplicably are marked as “low growth”.
• Inability to get questions answered about the data from the IDOE staff. School leaders who have had multiple conversations with IDOE staff report that no more than eight staff members have been assigned to respond to questions, some of whom are quite new to this assignment.
• Uncertainty in a few cases about whether their appeals would be reviewed and adjudicated before grades are made public on Oct. 31st. Appeals were due to the IDOE by Oct. 24th.
• The IDOE policy that if IDOE makes data errors they will be corrected, but if the district made an error by including a student in the previously submitted list of students who have been in the school for the required 162 days, the district has to live with its previous error.

Keep in mind that two of the State Board members are new and were not part of the decision to adopt this flawed A-F system. Perhaps telling your story will help them see that a revision is needed.

Other school leaders look at this situation and decide that they will suffer in silence because raising complaints in a public way will hurt their ability to get resources and help from IDOE for their students in other arenas. That is also an understandable position in this difficult climate. What is best for students is paramount.

As for me, retired as I am, I plan to speak at the end of the meeting. What is best for students is a revised A-F system that measures the growth of students against a criterion standard and not against the performance of peers. Putting a “Low Growth” label on an outstanding Pass + student who continues to score well above the Pass + cut score is simply wrong. What is best for students is a revised A-F system that does not demean their school with a low grade it doesn’t deserve. Indiana schools don’t deserve to be treated three times more harshly than Florida when the low grades are handed out. Verifiable National Assessment data that I have shared with you in previous notes confirm that Indiana is clearly outperforming Florida.

Where were Tony Bennett’s Commercials Filmed?

By now, everyone in Indiana has seen the polished Tony Bennett campaign commercials showing him supervising a science lab and looking like a principal monitoring the halls. When out-of-state contributors pushed his campaign fund total to $1.1 million, he could afford to blanket the state with expensive commercials.

Perhaps I was the last to hear this, but a teacher with personal knowledge of the episode has confirmed to me that the commercials were shot at Roncalli High School, a Catholic high school in Indianapolis.

This religious school connection is certainly symbolic of Tony Bennett’s dominant role in the biggest educational policy change in our generation, the decision to give public money to religious schools, as provided in the 2011 voucher law. This law broke a 160-year separation of church school tuition and state funding in Indiana, since the 1851 Constitution was written. It has entwined religion and state educational funding in a way that I believe is unconstitutional. The Indiana Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on this matter on November 21st. This is the election when people like me who think the voucher law was a tremendous error can express our feelings by voting against Tony Bennett.

Let the Ground Game for Glenda Ritz Begin

This grassroots campaign to elect Glenda Ritz needs a ground game, and you are the troops. Democracy is not a spectator sport. If you really want to help Glenda Ritz pull off an improbable upset against the million dollars of commercials, then copy off this handout and find friends and neighbors who haven’t heard anything about these crucial issues.

Believe me, there are still thousands of people out there who don’t know these educational issues and may only have seen Tony Bennett’s commercials. You can’t change that for thousands, but you can change that for 20. Perhaps you are like my friend who says she has talked to everyone who has a pulse. That is outstanding, but we need to keep going. Where will you find others who need to hear the message?

• In early voting lines. One friend went on her own to the early voting line in Marion County with Glenda Ritz handouts.
• In retirement centers. Consider retired friends you might visit who only get campaign information from the television unless someone brings information to them.
• In neighborhoods a few streets over from yours. This is the time to knock on doors, preferably between 4pm and 6pm. Keep it short. My experience is that neighbors listen to another neighbor they haven’t met before.

This is a democracy. These are self-appointed tasks. The future of public education in Indiana hangs in the balance. We can correct problems at the ballot box if enough are involved. Some of you can’t do any more than you are doing. Thank you for your efforts. We’ll find out on November 6th if enough were motivated to elect Glenda Ritz.

Best wishes,

Vic Smith

“Vic’s Election Notes on Education” is not linked to any organization and is not being distributed by me to any organization. It is only being distributed to those who have previously sent personal requests for my commentaries. If you want to pass it along to others, you do not need to ask my permission. If you want to be taken off the distribution list, just let me know. If you know of others who want to be added to the list, just send me an email.

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 #2– September 12, 2012

Dear Friends,

Tony Bennett’s flawed A-F system is hurting efforts to bring jobs to Indiana.

The Mayor of Goshen drove three hours to bring that message to the only public hearing on the A-F model last January. His community was working overtime to attract new businesses, and the first thing businesses ask is about the quality of the schools. He knew the schools were top notch, serving a student population of great diversity, but Tony Bennett’s grading system was undervaluing the schools in his community. For the sake of economic development, he asked for a revised plan to grade schools.

He was ignored, but in an election season when jobs and the economy are the biggest issues, Tony Bennett should have listened. Since January, I have heard many express the mayor’s concern, asking: Why would Tony Bennett want to undervalue and degrade the schools of Indiana when our communities are struggling with the Great Recession and the loss of jobs? Why wouldn’t he want a more accurate and more realistic profile of our schools to be available for economic development efforts?

Is the A-F system unfair in the way it devalues many Indiana schools?

Clearly and definitively, the answer is yes.

What is the evidence of this injustice?

Florida was Tony Bennett’s role model as he worked to change Indiana’s PL221 to a letter grade system, a change that has been one of the signature efforts of his four-year term as state superintendent. He brought Jeb Bush to Indiana to speak to the Roundtable in September of 2009 about Florida’s system. He brought Florida leaders to testify during legislative debates. Thus, the comparison between Indiana scores and Florida scores on the National Assessment, which some of you have seen, is crucial.

The comparison shows that Indiana students, on the same test, absolutely outscored Florida students on 4th and 8th grade math, most recently by 3% and 9% respectively, and on 8th grade reading, most recently by 5%. The same pattern has held true during the last four national assessments. Only 4th grade reading scores favored Florida over Indiana, which were the only data presented to the Roundtable meeting when Jeb Bush visited. For those who prefer to look at the proficient standard for high ability students, the same pattern holds. Overall, Indiana has consistently outperformed Florida on the National Assessment.

Then why, one must ask, is Tony Bennett ready to impose a grading system that, by IDOE figures released in February, would give D’s or F’s to 22% of Indiana’s schools, while Florida gives D’s or F’s to only 6% of its schools? He has incorrectly calibrated this system and given Indiana schools lower grades than they deserve to the detriment of economic development in communities across Indiana. Indiana does not deserve school letter grades that are over three times lower than Florida.

When I presented this Indiana vs. Florida comparison in testimony to the Select Commission on Education in June, I heard only one weak response from IDOE officials. They told the Select Commission that Florida had higher numbers of low grades when they started their system several years back, and now Indiana can expect to have higher numbers of low grades as we begin our system.

Think about that for a moment. That kind of reasoning is why we are having trouble in Indiana.

I characterize this as a weak response because it ignores the fact that the National Assessment shows the most recent performance of both states, and Indiana clearly outscores Florida. This reality should have nothing to do with phase in expectations or start-up issues. If Indiana is currently outperforming Florida, our letter grades should be at least in the same ballpark as Florida’s.

Is there additional evidence?

The National Assessment provides direct and devastating evidence of how Tony Bennett’s A-F system defames and devalues the schools of Indiana compared to Florida, but it is not the only evidence available on this issue. In addition, there is corroborating evidence that Indiana schools do not deserve a kick in the teeth. Take a look at the last 22 years of historical trends in Indiana schools on ten indicators, as seen on page 2 HERE. These data show whether Indiana has gone up or down over the years on everything from attendance and graduation rates to SAT and ISTEP scores. Then the range of results for the past 22 years is displayed. As you will see on the bottom line, the conclusion is that on eight of the ten indicators studied, Indiana stands at or near its historic high. Our schools on most points have never been better. We currently have the best graduation rate in our history – 85.7%-- and our lowest dropout rate in our history – 6.1%.

This provides additional evidence that Indiana schools deserve far better than Tony Bennett’s A-F system.

The second attachment shows the two summary pages of my 22-year review of Indiana public school improvement. If you would like a copy of all ten tables and the full 16 page report, just send me an email or click HERE to download a copy.

When will we see the grades?

The rollout of Tony Bennett’s flawed A-F system is off to a shaky start and has become an issue in itself.

Instead of approving preliminary school grades at the August 30th State Board meeting as originally scheduled in the board agenda, Dr. Bennett revised the agenda on the day of the meeting and announced an 11-day delay until September 10th. After schools get their preliminary grades on that date, he said they would have until September 21st to appeal. He said that the State Board would approve the grades and make them public on October 3rd, the day of the next State Board meeting.

While he tried to put a good face on this delay, Dr. Bennett can’t be pleased that his grading system, one of the biggest initiatives in his four-year term, missed its first announced deadline in the midst of his first reelection campaign. I have heard three questions as people speculate on the cause of the delay: 1) Is his staff too small for calculations that are too complex? 2) Are so many highly regarded schools about to get low grades that he wanted to recheck every figure to be ready to defend the system? and 3) Is this the first of a series of delays designed to delay school grade announcements until after the election, so that the heat that is sure to come over unfair grades will fall after the voting on November 6th?

Or is it all of the above?

And now word came this week on September 10th of another delay, saying that preliminary school letter grades “will be released later this week.” Does anyone want to add more speculation about what caused a second delay?

Conclusion

That the A-F system has become an issue in the November 6th election is a natural result of our democracy. When all 35 speakers testified against the flawed system in the only public hearing last January, Tony Bennett didn’t listen. He didn’t even attend the hearing. Over the objections of the Indiana Chamber of Commerce, the Indiana Public Charter School Association, and many other groups and individuals, he got the system passed through his sheer power over the State Board of Education.

When the Indiana Chamber of Commerce called in June for a putting this system on hold for a year to repair the flaws, Tony Bennett didn’t listen. He said he had to comply with the federal waiver that he wrote.

Clearly, objecting to federal control is not in Tony Bennett’s mindset.

Besides incorrectly calibrating the school letter grades to a more punitive result than Indiana schools deserve, there are two major, and I would say illegal, flaws in Tony Bennett’s A-F system:

1) It does not set up categories of improvement as the law requires.

“IC 20-31-8-3 Sec. 3. The state board shall establish a number of categories or designations of school improvement based on the improvement that a school makes in performance of the measures determined by the board with the advice of the education roundtable. The categories or designations must reflect various levels of improvement.”

Instead of setting up categories based on improvement or growth, Tony Bennett’s system bases letter grades on performance. The most important factor in the school grade will be the performance of the school on math and English tests. The base grade is only tweaked based on growth. The Indiana Chamber of Commerce noted this as the first problem in their list of objections presented to the Select Commission, saying that the focus on the pass/fail rate “incentives continuing focus on the bubble kids”, referring to the problem that students who are close to getting over the cut score get the most attention. We need a system that gets us away from over-attention to the “bubble kids.”

2) The growth model used for bonuses and penalties is based, not on a clear criterion score, but on the performance of peers across the state.

School leaders are frustrated that they can’t calculate their own grade without statewide data they don’t have regarding growth. The bonuses and the penalties for growth can only be calculated based on each individual’s growth compared to the total state performance of peers. This, in my view, violates IC 20-31-8-2(b): (b) The department shall assess improvement in the following manner: (1) Compare each school and each school corporation with its own prior performance and not to the performance of other schools or school corporations. The labeling of high and low growth students does indeed use comparisons involving the students of other schools and school corporations.

The only remaining path to repairing the A-F system is at the ballot box on November 6th. Elections are the accountability system for leaders who ignore their stakeholders.

Glenda Ritz has called for a revised A-F system. She listens. I support Glenda Ritz for State Superintendent of Public Instruction.

I urge you to support Glenda Ritz in any way you can, with yard signs, bumper stickers or by talking with family members, neighbors and friends. The general public knows very little about the A-F system and the injustice to our schools that I have just described. Help your friends and neighbors understand this issue, and ask them to support Glenda Ritz to remedy this problem.

Best wishes,

Vic Smith

“Vic’s Election Notes on Education” is not linked to any organization and is not being distributed by me to any organization. It is only being distributed to those who have previously sent personal requests for my commentaries. If you want to pass it along to others, you do not need to ask my permission. If you want to be taken off the distribution list, just let me know. If you know of others who want to be added to the list, just send me an email.

Attachments (Click to view):

1. Table: Why Indiana Does Not Deserve Significantly Lower Letter Grades Than Florida

2. A Twenty-two Year Review: Improvement in Indiana's Schools

~~~