Never Underestimate Your Ability to Get the Message Out

The following came to us from Julian Smith, an Indiana Teacher...

I share this little anecdote to put an exclamation mark on a point.

I took my son Brooks to a walkin clinic yesterday to get a strep test. While we were waiting on the results, the nurse practioner commented, "So you say you're a teacher?"

I responded, "No, I didn't say, but yes I am."

She continues, "So what did you think of the election?"

Says I, "Well, if you're referring to the Glenda Ritz race, and her beating Tony Bennett, I'm still simply ecstatic. How do you feel about it?"

Then she drops the bomb on me. She says, "I'm a Republican, but I voted for Ritz." She then ask me, "Didn't you write a couple letters to the newspaper?"

I tell her, "Yes in fact I did, but how did you remember my name and connect it to a random guy coming through this clinic? "

Her reply was simply, "I read a lot."

She then went on to tell me if it weren't for the letters in the paper and all the talk on Facebook, she would have voted for Bennett as she had no other way to get informed. She says, "He sure had some good ads, but when I read what teachers had to say about him and his brand of reform, I realized he must be a pretty slick operator." She went on to say, "He sure did an effective job of making it look like it was all for kids, but the more I read, the more I suspected it was cover for his effort to privatize public schools."

At that point, once I got my jaw picked up from the floor, I told her she should consider being a detective because she possessed some formidable powers of intuition to get all that from reading a few letters in the paper and some post on Facebook:-)

...and here's the reality. There must have been nearly a million other nonteacher voters that made their decision the same way. They heard the voices and concerns of thousands of teachers, and they placed their confidence in teacher assessment rather than a ficticious slick glitzy campaign ad based on fantasy. This fact is incredibly uplifting, encouraging, and empowering.

So, now we have another duty and responsibility, as if you need more! Now, we must keep talking, and keep telling the story, and informing those that entrusted their votes to our judgement. We can not and must not retreat to the seeming security of our classrooms, close the door, and bear the brunt of the Republican bellicose bullies. Silence is no longer an option.

Here's the point. Never underestimate your ability to get the message out. It will resonate with someone. It doesn't cost anything to write a letter or speak a few words, except the investment of a tiny bit of time. When they are published or spoken, people take note. And when exposed to truth, many will be influenced to come to the aid of our common cause with their votes and to advocate for children and our public schools with their voices.

--
Julian Smith
President JCCTA
ISTA/IPACE
Units 3/F,G and H

Petition to Support Public Education in Indiana

Some folks have started a petition to ask the governor and legislature to acknowledge that Glenda Ritz, the Superintendent of Public Instruction-elect was elected to change the plan which Tony Bennett has been pushing in Indiana.

Click HERE to sign the petition.

Here's the content:

Indiana voters elected Glenda Ritz as our new Superintendent of Public Instruction by a large margin. She received roughly 1,300,000 votes--about 100,000 more votes than the governor-elect, Mike Pence. Now, however, Governor Daniels refuses to acknowledge that our election of Glenda Ritz sent a clear message on the direction of school reform, saying instead: "The consensus and momentum for reform and change in Indiana is rock solid." Governor-elect Mike Pence is also choosing to interpret the election results as a "strong affirmation on the progress of education reform in this state," (Journal Gazette 11/8/12). On the contrary: when Indiana voters elected Glenda Ritz as superintendent, we rejected the top-down, corporate reform model imposed by the state. We embraced Ritz's platform and her research-backed proposals to support and improve our public schools.

Petition Letter

Dear Governor, Indiana Legislators and D.O.E. Board,

Indiana voters elected Glenda Ritz as Superintendent of Public Instruction by a large margin. She received roughly 1,300,000 votes--about 100,000 more votes than the governor-elect, Mike Pence. We call upon Governor Daniels, future governor Mike Pence, the D.O.E. Board, and our legislature to respect voters' clear message on the direction of public education in Indiana. We affirm our support for our candidate and her platform:

"More time to education, less time to testing" The use of high-stake testing to judge children, schools, and communities harms the process of teaching and learning.

"More control to local school districts to implement state and federal standards" Local schools need resources and support, not rigid dictates.

"Clear the barriers to quality vocational education" Schools must be given the flexibility to support a vibrant curriculum for high school students' vocational interests.

"Make teacher licensing and evaluation standards top in the nation" All children should be taught by qualified instructors. Effective teacher preparation programs are vital, and teacher licensing should be based upon comprehensive, effective teacher preparation.

"Stop the flow of public tax dollars to private education companies running take-over schools"

We believe public tax dollars belong in public schools. All school districts in Indiana deserve equitable funding.

The vote for Glenda Ritz is a mandate for the protection of the child's constitutional right to a free, high-quality public education as articulated in Article 8, Section 1 of the Indiana State Constitution, funded by tax dollars.

Sincerely,
[Your name]

And here's another one which seems to be specifically directed at supporters of Mike Pence, the Indiana Governor-elect.

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 #9– November 3, 2012

Dear Friends,

Tony Bennett’s school letter grade system has produced D’s and F’s for 18.6% of all Indiana Schools, in contrast to Florida where 6% of all schools get D’s and F’s. Yet Indiana clearly outscores Florida on a common test taken in all states, the National Assessment of Educational Progress.

The evidence that Indiana schools perform better than Florida schools can be found here, which is the testimony I gave in Public Comments after letter grades were approved and made public at the October 31st meeting of the State Board of Education. I wanted to make sure board members had seen the actual National Assessment results which show they are undervaluing Indiana schools compared to Florida. Despite all the tax breaks and business recruitment efforts made by the General Assembly to attract businesses to Indiana, don’t look for any businesses to move here from Florida or from other places when our schools have been undervalued by a flawed system.

The state totals announced on Wednesday were –

41.0% of schools were graded A
20.1% of schools were graded B
20.4% of schools were graded C
11.6% of schools were graded D
  7.0% of schools were graded F

While Tony Bennett called this “a positive day,” the system remains flawed and mystifying to many educators, especially at the elementary and middle school level. Consider these two schools that Tony Bennett apparently believes are “bad” schools:

• Liberty Early elementary in MSD Decatur got a D. It serves only pre-kindergarten and kindergarten students. These students have not been tested on ISTEP+. So how did they get a D? In Tony Bennett’s drive to hold every school accountable, early childhood centers are given grades based on the average of the elementary schools that they feed students to. The elementary students are tested in grades 3 through 6, so Liberty Early elementary was graded on the performance of students that the school has not interacted with for three years.
• William Bell School #60 in the Indianapolis Public Schools got an F. It serves only K through 2 students who have not taken ISTEP+. It reopened this year as a Reggio magnet school under the guidance of Butler University. Nearly all of the students are new this year under the new magnet program philosophy, yet under the feeder school rule cited above and based on students from past years, Tony Bennett celebrated its rebirth by giving it an F.

Has all common sense left Tony Bennett in implementing this A-F system?

The Indiana Growth Model

The controversial growth model is used for elementary and middle schools in the A-F system to bump up or bump down the grade after the primary grade is determined based on total percent passing. Growth is based on bell-curve statistics comparing students to a statewide cohort of peers. The growth metrics continue to produce mystifying and inexplicable results which anger educators:

Exhibit 1

One frustrated principal in northern Indiana had a 5th grader who has scored Pass+ since the 3rd grade who this year scored 39 scale score points above the Pass+ cut off score for English/Language Arts. Yet, the student was marked as “Low Growth.” The principal asked “How is that possible?” with an added comment “It is so maddening.”

Indeed.

Exhibit 2

The Indiana Association Public School Superintendents has distributed an analysis of the growth model written by Chris Himsel, superintendent of Northwest Allen County Schools and formerly the director of testing in Lafayette. His comments, dated October 26th, are telling:

“Because the score is based on a normal curve that compares kids within score bands, no predictability or transparency exists. Likewise, kids whose scores increase at a rate 2 or 3 times the rate that the cut score increases can be low growth while other students whose scale score decreases compared to the previous year can be considered high growth – it all depends on who the student is compared to. Likewise, a student whose score increases 25 points may be high growth one year, and a different student in the same grade level the following year may be considered low growth for the exact same 25 point increase the next year. This does not make sense and does not measure growth. It measures competition among students and assumes no matter how much or how little learning is taking place that some students are high, others are typical, and some are low. . . .

I will need to explain it to parents and media members in the next few weeks, and I do not know how I will accomplish it since I do not understand it myself. I do not understand how some students can have their score decrease and be considered high growth while others see dramatic increases in their scale score and are considered low growth. I do not understand how one cut off for determining growth bonus points or growth penalty points is 36.2%, another is 42.5%, another 39.2%, another is 44.9%, etc. It looks like the policymakers are trying to determine a cut off that identifies a particular quantity of students or schools in certain categories. “

His full statement was written in response to a legislator who had asked about the A-F system, and he attached a page which you can find here showing how random and unpredictable scores can be under Tony Bennett’s Indiana Growth Model. The attached page alone is a powerful indictment of how the system plays out and gives a strong rationale for revising the A-F formula.

Exhibit 3

A central Indiana superintendent and principal have verified that an elementary student with a perfect score for two years in a row was labeled as “Low Growth.” An appeal to IDOE made no difference.

Yes, that said “perfect score.” How many individuals and schools need to be hurt by this system before we conclude that it must be revised?

That’s three strikes, and this A-F system should be out.

What more needs to be said. We need a change.

The Election is in Three Days

After all the hearings and all the commentary about problems in the A-F system, Tony Bennett has not listened and continues to enthusiastically defend the system. Elections in a democracy were devised for situations like this. When leaders don’t listen, new leaders can be elected. Voting for Glenda Ritz is the only avenue left to correct the A-F system that has already damaged many schools and stands to hurt economic development efforts in many communities.

A new poll announced Friday (Nov. 2nd) shows Tony Bennett at 40% and Glenda Ritz at 36%. Obviously, many remain undecided. Your efforts today, Sunday, Monday and Tuesday could make THE difference in bringing victory to this improbable grassroots campaign to defeat the million-dollar campaign of Tony Bennett propelled by out-of-state money.

Here is a Glenda Ritz handout that you can copy and take door-to-door in the closing days of this race. Does participation in our democracy make a difference? Absolutely.

The candidate with the most votes on Tuesday will set policies for the next four years. Before the election, please reach out to 20 additional friends and neighbors who are undecided or unaware of these issues to make sure that the next four years will be led by Glenda Ritz. Your work at the grassroots will make all the difference.

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.

NEIFPE Supports Glenda Ritz

NEWS RELEASE
For Immediate Release

October 23, 2012

Contact: neifpe@gmail.com

Northern Indiana Education Advocacy Group Backs Glenda Ritz for Superintendent of Public Instruction

Public Education supporters concerned over negative impact of high-stakes testing, vouchers, charter schools, and teacher evaluations.

FORT WAYNE, IN – Citing strong and growing concern over the negative impact the corporatization of Indiana’s educational system is having on public education in Indiana, members of Northeast Indiana Friends of Public Education (NEIFPE) today announced their support of Glenda Ritz for Superintendent of Public Instruction. Formed earlier this year, NEIFPE is a group of citizens, teachers, administrators and parents who are united by their support for public education and by concerns for its future.

The group believes that Glenda Ritz is the best candidate to refocus Indiana’s educational efforts toward students and learning rather than corporate interests. NEIFPE finds that recent federal and state reform measures that have turned education over to private interests threaten the well-being of children and jeopardize their futures.

The group supports Ritz, who has taken a stand against high-stakes testing and is committed to providing more time for education and less time for testing in Indiana.

For additional information visit www.neifpe.blogspot.com, www.ritz4ed.com or https://www.facebook.com/NEIFPE.

# # #

Vic’s Election Notes on Education #7– October 23, 2012

Dear Friends,

Tony Bennett’s policies have narrowed the curriculum to Math and English/Language Arts.

His focus on high stakes testing has put a huge priority on the two subjects schools must score well in for a high grade. Even survival as a school is at stake under the threat of state closure or takeover. Going further in this campaign, Tony Bennett has proposed state takeovers of whole school districts based on math and English/Language Arts scores.

The tremendous impact of this pressure on schools is not well understood by the public. Nor is it well understood by Tony Bennett, whose IDOE recently defended testing in the schools (“The Truth about Testing” posted 10/9/12 on the IDOE website) by saying that students only spend 6.5 hours per year taking ISTEP+ and that requirement only applies to seven grade levels. Tony Bennett apparently has not been in enough schools lately to know that the obsession to drive test scores higher, even if they are high already, is palpable in the life of our schools. It has undermined support for every other subject and elective.

We no longer have a balanced curriculum as we did up through the 1980’s. We used to a have state curriculum rule requiring a balanced curriculum, but this rule was repealed as the accountability movement picked up steam in the 1990’s. Now, school success is defined as success on math and language arts tests.

This is dangerous for the long term development of our democracy and our culture. Consider the areas of our curriculum and community life that are being left to atrophy as we push for higher math and English scores:

Music and Art

Specialists in music and art have suffered under the current priorities. They are grieving the decline of what they know is a vital portion of our curriculum. When Gov. Daniels and Dr. Bennett cut the already appropriated school budget by $300 million in December 2009 and never restored it as revenues improved, the consequences didn’t fall on reading and math teachers. They fell first on music and art teachers and on other “optional” specialists listed in areas below. Of course, state officials mandated the cuts, but local officials got blamed for the choices made for the cuts. It’s been tough to be a local school official in recent years, while Gov. Daniels and Dr. Bennett got praised for cutting the budget.

The irony is that research has well established that the arts can promote the brain development that unleashes reading and math development. That research is validated in my own experience as I look back to the 5th grade when I started playing cello in Elkhart’s outstanding music program. Looking back, it is clear now that my academic and intellectual development paralleled my intense interest and participation in music starting in the 5th grade. We need the arts in our schools.

Health and Physical Education

The Indianapolis Star proclaimed in a front page story in September (9/19/12) that Indiana is now tied for 8th among all states in the highest rate of obesity. Clearly health and physical education in our schools deserves a high priority.

Tony Bennett thinks otherwise. In the 2012 session of the General Assembly, he tried to repeal a long standing law that required a state health education curriculum and a state health education consultant. Years ago, health educators worked hard to pass a law that they thought would institutionalize a state role in health education. Tony Bennett didn’t want a health education consultant and three years into his term tried to repeal the law. Health and obesity issues apparently didn’t concern him. The heart association fought the repeal and in the end, Tony Bennett’s repeal bill failed. The law is still on the books, but there is obviously no priority on this program within IDOE.

Social Studies

Public schools have from their beginnings nearly 200 years ago been charged with building skilled citizens to protect and defend our democracy. This arena is often called the civic mission of schools, a mission which includes helping young people become informed voters, active participants in community concerns, and protectors of our Constitution.

Tony Bennett has ignored the civic mission of our schools.

Here is the record:

1. A new strategic plan for the Indiana Department of Education, developed internally without public input, was issued in the opening weeks of the new administration, setting high goals for math and language arts test scores, for Advanced Placement tests, and for graduation rates. Dubbed the “90-25-90” plan, it omits any mention of developing the skills of responsible citizens.
2. The two social studies consultants serving Indiana were fired in the first two weeks of the new administration and not replaced. Questions about geography, economics, civics and history were answered by staff not experienced in these areas. This was the first time IDOE had functioned without a social studies consultant since the position was first established in the 1960’s. I held the position for 2 years in the 1980’s and I know it plays a crucial role in citizenship education in Indiana. About a year and a half later, a part time social studies consultant was added because the new common core curriculum had a social studies strand. When I last asked the president of the Indiana Council for the Social Studies about social studies staff in IDOE, I was told there was a new part-time person but he wasn’t sure who it was. Tony Bennett has ended the long tradition of providing IDOE staff leadership for the civic mission.
3. Funding for the extremely successful “Economic Education Mini-Grant” program which had planted seeds of entrepreneurial skills in students across Indiana for 30 years was cut off, as was the funding for staff to direct it. One would think that in the Great Recession, Tony Bennett would want to prominently support any program with a great track record of developing entrepreneurs. Not so.

Each fall from 2005 to 2010, I taught a social studies methods course for elementary teachers-in-training as an adjunct professor at IUPUI. The courses were always taught in a school building and had frequent observation and classroom participation time built in. Increasingly as the years went on, my students would report that the classes they were observing were too busy working on reading and math to do anything with social studies. This corroborates many studies and surveys showing that the accountability movement of the last decade is squeezing social studies out of elementary classrooms.

The laser focus on raising English and math scores is increasingly taking time and resources from the civic mission and, indeed, from any mission other than literacy and numeracy.

Science

Science is part of the STEM (Science/Technology/Engineering/Math) emphasis that gets much attention at the national level. Despite that status, science is suffering the same neglect as social studies in the elementary schools, and the lack of a strong foundation at the elementary level leaves science educators very concerned. Indiana gives science tests at 4th and 6th, just as they give social studies tests at the 5th and 7th grade. Everyone knows, however, that these subject matter tests do not count toward the letter grade system of the school which carries life or death consequences for the school, and potentially if Tony Bennett is re-elected, for the school district. Given the stakes, it is not surprising that all the attention is flowing to math and English. Science, for all of its importance for our future, is suffering.

Vocational programs

Seemingly every candidate is talking about a revival of vocational education in this year’s campaign. As I see it, candidates are responding to frustrated advocates for vocational education who have seen vocational electives erode in the face of other mandated courses. Why are there fewer electives available in a student’s schedule for vocational courses? When a high school student fails the math or English end-of-course assessment, they are generally placed in another math or English course to make up the deficiencies in order to qualify for graduation. Taking additional math or English means taking fewer electives, and vocational courses are among those that take the hit.

World Language programs

In today’s global economy, we need more people who are fluent in the languages of other nations. In Tony Bennett’s reforms, this need is ignored. At the high school, electives in foreign language are being squeezed out for the same reasons described above for vocational programs. Additional math and English courses have to replace something, and foreign languages classes have been hit hard. Research shows that the younger the student is, the easier they will learn another language, which would suggest more such programs at the elementary level. Budget cuts have prevented additional elementary programs to blossom, along with the relentless pressure elementary and middle schools face to raise math and English scores. The entire school letter grade in elementary and middle schools is entirely based on math and English scores, and this puts everything else such as foreign languages in a second class status.

Priorities: Taking a Broader View

Tony Bennett has pushed Indiana to focus nearly exclusively on reading and math. In defending the 2010 3rd grade reading retention bill and contradicting Gov. Daniels claim that the bill “needn’t, shouldn’t, won’t cost one extra cent,” Dr. Bennett “acknowledged the reality of potential expenses but said none of the funding would have to come from new state dollars. All of it, he said, is funding that is already available to local schools; it would simply need to be redirected. ‘I was thinking that this is about us focusing local resources on this initiative.’ Bennett said it’s a question of priorities.” (Indpls Star, 1/22/10, p. A23)

Going on, the article reported that Dr. Bennett “suggested the cost of an extra 90 minutes a day of reading intervention could be mitigated by embedding it within the normal school day, perhaps at the expense of recess or an arts class, which students would have to give up to focus on reading.”

English and math scores have dominated schools since PL221 (1999) and No Child Left Behind (2002) made scores in both subjects the determinants of whether a school lived or died under accountability rules. Now in 2011 legislation, Tony Bennett brought a quantum leap in the same direction. Now teacher evaluations and merit pay will be based on reading and math scores. When jobs are on the line, everything else will be put on the back burner.

Reading and math are indeed crucial priorities, but should they be the only priorities? Our democracy cannot survive without instruction in basic civics, geography, economics and history. At the elementary level, these subjects are disappearing and at the secondary level, IDOE leadership to promote vibrant programs like We the People, Project Citizen, History Day, Geography Bee and the Indiana Kids Election is missing. Our economy cannot survive without instruction in science, foreign language and economics to give us more inventors, exporters and entrepreneurs. Our culture cannot survive without instruction in music and art. Does anyone doubt that the loss of public and private support for the world renown Indianapolis Symphony Orchestra is rooted in part in the loss of music and arts programs in the last decade, since the accountability movement began crowding them out of the curriculum in the late 1990’s. These vitally important programs struggle for attention in a test-driven curriculum.

Only about half of all Americans of voting age cast votes in Presidential elections. Even with all the interest shown in the 2008 elections, participation only rose to 57%, the highest in 40 years. In crucial Congressional elections in non-Presidential years, less than 40% vote. Citizen participation needs an upgrade. Participation in our representative government is based on knowledge that for many students is gained only through the civic mission of our public schools. We must not ignore the mission of building responsible citizens with breadth in their knowledge and balance in their perspectives. Extending to the next generation our priceless heritage of freedom under the Constitution depends on it.

Glenda Ritz Needs Your Support

For the sake of our democracy, our economy and our culture, we must broaden our priorities. Glenda Ritz has called for the restoration of common sense in pulling back from the overemphasis on high stakes testing and for restoration of the balance in our curriculum. I hope you will support Glenda Ritz by participating in the grassroots campaign to elect her as State Superintendent of Public Instruction. We must have a new direction.

The November 6th election is now two weeks away and will have huge consequences for education in Indiana. I urge you to support Glenda Ritz in any way you can by talking with family members, neighbors and friends, especially those with no connection to education issues. Her name recognition is rising but is still low. The Wabash College debate tomorrow night will help. Tony Bennett’s expensive TV commercials are everywhere. Glenda Ritz needs your involvement and your support at the grassroots level. Please do what you can to speak up for her before Election Day.

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.

Vic’s Election Notes on Education #6– October 16, 2012

Here is the latest from Vic Smith. His document, A 22-YEAR REVIEW: IMPROVEMENT IN INDIANA’S PUBLIC SCHOOLS is available by clicking HERE.

----

Dear Friends,

For all the angst he has caused and the retirements he has motivated with his tactics, Tony Bennett’s record on raising test scores and graduation rates is essentially on par with the record of his predecessor, Suellen Reed.

In two campaign commercials and in his “State of Education” address on September 25th, he has touted raising both graduation rates and test scores. Let’s look at the precise record.

Graduation Rates: A Continuation of Steady Improvement

Graduation rates have been the fodder for political campaign debates since the Frank O’Bannon-David McIntire race for Governor in 2000. After great squabbles over the formula for determining graduation rates, the Indiana General Assembly finally authorized a count based on giving every student a number and then tracking every student who stays in that school to see how many graduate in four years. If they take five or six years to graduate, as in the case of many special education students, they do not count in the graduation rate.

The formula was clarified and students tracked from 9th to 12th grades beginning with the Class of 2006. Here are the results of the six years IDOE has reported the revised method:

Year                   % Graduating in Four Years              % Drop Outs

Class of 2006                           76.1                                          11.2
Class of 2007                           76.4                                          11.9
Class of 2008                           77.8                                          10.3
Class of 2009                           81.5                                            8.7
Class of 2010                           84.1                                            6.4
Class of 2011                           85.7                                            6.1

Data for the Class of 2012 is not expected until December. The columns above do not add up to 100% because the new method of tracking every student revealed that an unexpectedly large number of students, as many as 7 or 8 percent, stay in school for a 5th or 6th year. Special education students have the right to stay in high school until their 22nd birthday. Others leave school without graduating and without dropping out by completing a special education certificate or by completing a course completion certificate, given to those who did not pass the required high school graduation tests.

Tony Bennett has complained that too many schools are granting graduations based on the waiver law. Waiver graduations occur when students do not pass the high school graduation tests in math and English but do meet the alternative list of criteria set up by the General Assembly for graduation. The General Assembly passed legislation authorizing waiver graduations after parents appealed to legislators to not allow a single test to nullify a four-year record of successful course work and achievement. The percentage of diplomas based on waivers has ranged between 5% and 8% since 2006. Waiver diplomas are the subject of much debate, but the focus here is on the total graduation figures listed above because those are the figures Dr. Bennett has cited in his campaign.

The next question is how the above scores should be divided between Dr. Reed and Dr. Bennett. This is a matter of judgment. Since Dr. Reed was in office for seven of the eight semesters for the Class of 2009, I include 2009 data with Dr. Reed’s record. Since Dr. Bennett took office in January of 2009 before the Class of 2009 graduated in June, I also include the Class of 2009 with Dr. Bennett’s record. Using these guidelines, the comparison comes out as follows:

Dr. Reed (2006-2009):

• Graduation rate 76.1% in 2006
• Graduation rate 81.5% in 2009, up 5.4% in 3 years after her baseline year.
• Drop out rate 11.2% in 2006
• Drop out rate8.7% in 2009, down 2.5% in 3 years after her baseline year.

Dr. Bennett (2009-2011):

• Graduation rate 81.5% in 2009
• Graduation rate 85.7% in 2011, up 4.2% in 2 years after his baseline year.
• Drop out rate 8.7% in 2009
• Drop out rate 6.1% in 2011, down 2.6% in 2 years after his baseline year.

Campaign statisticians might take these figures and try to find an edge. To me however, both Dr. Reed and Dr. Bennett were pretty much on par on raising graduation rates.

That leaves an important question: What did all of Tony Bennett’s comparative turmoil and controversy accomplish if his record is about the same as that of Suellen Reed?

Test Scores: A Conveniently Timed Adjustment

The record on ISTEP+ scores is, as always, more complex.

The Indianapolis Star took Tony Bennett to task in his “State of Education” address for saying that the ISTEP+ scores went up by 8 percent, from 63% to 71%, for those passing both math and English parts of the test. He was, the Star said, supposed to say the scores went up by 8 percentage points, not 8 percent. A change, they said, from 63% to 71% was a 12% increase.

That was the first fact-checking on Tony Bennett I had seen in the Star in a long, long time. I wish, however, they had discovered a deeper problem.

The deeper concern was buried in the fine print of the 2011 ISTEP+ results. Many of you have seen the report I produce every year, currently showing 22 years of year-by-year data on improvement in Indiana’s public schools. When I was preparing the most recent report last spring, which is attached for your reference, the Spring 2011 results carried a surprising advisory, saying that the 2011 results could not be compared to the Spring 2010 results. The reason given was that in 2011, the “Undetermined” scores were removed from the analysis.

At this point, you are asking: What does all this mean?

Undetermined scores are for students who have only partially completed the test. This could be due to students getting sick before the test is completed or to any number of calamities that could occur when students are tested: weather problems, floods, family emergencies. Schools have seen it all.

Until the Spring 2011 tests, the long term practice throughout Dr. Reed’s time in office was to include undetermined scores in the denominator when percent passing was calculated. In effect, that meant undetermined scores were treated as failing scores. Suddenly, in 2011, a different decision was made. Undetermined scores were set aside and excluded from the analysis. They were left out of the denominator. The net effect of that decision was to lower the denominator and raise the percentage passing totals across the board by about 2%. That is why the advisory said that comparisons between 2010 and 2011 should not be made. It was a “one-time in history” 2% bump up in the scores.

Now fast forward to 2012. The new results issued last summer again excluded the undetermined scores. Therefore, 2012 results can appropriately be compared with 2011 results. However, Tony Bennett in his speech compared the 2012 results (“71%”) with the 2009 results (“63%”). That would be an inappropriate comparison due to the change in IDOE policy on undetermined scores. Instead of a change of 8 percentage points, it should be reported as a probable change of 6 percentage points, since changing the policy on undetermined scores lifts all passing percentage figures by approximately 2 percentage points.

Like I said, the ISTEP+ story is more complex.

The interesting question for speculation is why the change was made. I have no inside information. I don’t even know if Tony Bennett is aware of this nuance produced by his testing staff. All I can do is observe that the change was made in one of the middle years of his term so Tony Bennett would not have to see words saying “comparisons should not be made to the previous year” in 2012. It was timed just right to show a slightly bigger gain (about 2% bigger) since the 2009 tests.

Website Changes

After telling you the story of undetermined scores, I planned to tell you the story of my independent efforts to verify the gains claimed on test scores. My framework was to be the 22-year review, which is attached. The analysis in that document counts, grade by grade, the number of valid year-by-year comparisons that went up, the number that went down, and the number that stayed the same.

To my dismay, when I went to the IDOE website to get the 2012 data to bring my tables up to date, the data I have used for years was not on the website. I have used ISTEP+ reports that were statewide grade by grade disaggregated totals. They are no longer available on the IDOE website.

IDOE has changed their website several times, starting in 2010. I don’t know anyone who thinks the changes have been in the direction of more transparency and more data available. Instead, there is less available.

Then when I went to the archive of previous ISTEP years, the archive files did not open. It could be a problem with the IDOE website or it could be a problem with my trusted computer, which has opened everything else. Draw your own conclusions.

Summary

My quest to verify graduation rate and test score gains during Tony Bennett’s years in office has ended in two conclusions:

1. Graduation rate increases during Dr. Bennett’s term are about on par with graduation rate increases while Dr. Reed was in office.
2. The switch in 2011 to excluding undetermined scores from the calculations provided an approximate 2% boost to all percentage passing levels.

Positive gains are not in dispute here. A string of positive gains have generally been the norm for a long time, as documented in the year-by-year tables of the attached 22-year review.

A key question that must be asked is whether the gains in test scores and graduation rates during Tony Bennett’s four-year term have come at a cost. Did he sacrifice in other areas to bring these gains, areas that Suellen Reed did not sacrifice? What were the opportunity costs of his intense focus on math and English tests?

I will explore that important question in the next “Notes.”

A Strong Endorsement for Glenda Ritz

The Fort Wayne Journal Gazette strongly endorsed Glenda Ritz in their October 14th editorial entitled “Time to Halt Bennett’s Ambitions.” I agree with everything they wrote, from their opening words, “Indiana public schools are struggling under the leadership of Tony Bennett” to their closing words, “Voters should compare the leadership styles and results of a politically ambitious superintendent versus his two widely respected predecessors. Ritz promises to serve more in the mold of Evans and Reed; she’s the easy choice for Indiana’s top education post.”

Please talk with neighbors and friends who are not familiar with education issues to enlist their support for Glenda Ritz. That is a vital step to counteract the enormous advantage in TV advertising held by Tony Bennett and his campaign that has been so well funded by out-of –state interests. Your actions will make all the difference if Glenda Ritz is going to win in this grassroots campaign.

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.

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

~~~