SUMMARY OF TEN IMPROVEMENT INDICATORS IN INDIANA EDUCATION 

 

                                                                      23-YEAR                  CURRENT            AT OR NEAR         

                                                                       RANGE                    MARK                  HISTORIC HIGH?

1. ATTENDANCE RATE                                             94.7 – 96.1                 96.1                            YES

2. GRADUATION RATE                                             76.1 – 88.4                 88.4                            YES

(new method since 2006)

3. SAT VERBAL SCORES                                              485 - 504
                                                            (1988-89 – 2004-05)

SAT CRITICAL READING                            493 – 498                   493                              NO

            (revised test 2005-06 – 2010-11)

SAT WRITING                                              475 – 486                   476                              NO

            (revised test 2005-06 – 2010-11)
4. SAT MATH SCORES                                                 485- 508
                                                            (1988-89 – 2004-05)

SAT MATH –REVISED                                  501 – 509                   501                              NO

            (revised test 2005-06 – 2010-11)

 5. ACT COMPOSITE SCORES                                     20.9 – 22.3                 22.3                             YES

6. NATIONAL ASSESSMENT (NAEP)                                                                                                   YES
            (percent passing basic standard)

4^TH GRADE MATH                                         60% - 89%                 87%                              YES

            8^TH GRADE MATH                                         56% - 78%                 77%                              YES
            4^TH GRADE READING                                    64% - 70%                 68%                              YES
            8^TH GRADE READING                                    73% - 79%                 78%                               YES
            4^TH GRADE SCIENCE                                     70% - 74%                  70%                               NO
            8^TH GRADE SCIENCE                                     62% - 67%               67%                               YES
            8^TH GRADE WRITING                                    85% - 89%                  89%                               YES

 7. ISTEP ENGLISH/LANGUAGE ARTS SCORES                                                                                      YES

             (67 year-to-year comparisons)  33 (49%) went up Gr. 3, 5 & 6 went up ; 18 (27%) went down Gr. 7 went down

16 (24%) same Gr. 4 & 8 same

8. ISTEP MATH SCORES                                                                                                                            YES

              (67 year-to-year comparisons) 42 (63%) went up Gr. 3, 6, 7 & 8 went up 11 (16%) went down No grade went                    down 14 (21%) same Gr. 4 & 5 same

9. ASPIRING TO COLLEGE                                          48.9% - 77.0%              77.0%                              YES

10. HONORS/CORE 40 DIPLOMAS                           42.8% - 81.9%              81.9%                              YES

 CONCLUSION: EIGHT OF THE TEN INDICATORS ARE AT OR NEAR THEIR HISTORIC HIGH.

 

A review of 23 consecutive years of data for Indiana’s public schools show that they are currently performing at or near their historic high on eight of ten key indicators. While there remains plenty of room for further improvement, claims that Indiana’s public schools have declined or failed are clearly not based on facts, as a review of the attached data will show. The legislative push to dismantle public education and use state tax dollars for vouchers to send students to private schools is clearly based on beliefs and ideology and not on performance data.

 

Source:  www.icpe2011.com

Tony Bennett's Fiasco

....in case you're local paper won't print it.  Take a look.

Dear Editor,
Tony Bennett’s plan to give letter grades to schools has turned into a fiasco. Last January, all 35 speakers in the only public hearing on his plan opposed it, including representatives of all education groups and the Indiana Chamber of Commerce. Dr. Bennett did not attend the hearing. Nevertheless, he pushed the plan through in February without any of the recommended changes, despite information from his own department that the plan would result in 22% D’s and F’s for Indiana schools. In comparison, Florida last year gave D’s and F’s to 6% of their schools. Indiana schools are not over 3 times worse than Florida schools! This fact is certifiably grounded in data from the National Assessment, which is a test taken in common by all states and is known as “the nation’s report card.” On the National Assessment, Indiana consistently outscores Florida in 4th and 8th grade math and in 8th grade reading, and Indiana consistently scores higher than the national average. Tony Bennett’s A-F system has demeaned the performance of Indiana’s schools compared to Florida. Conveniently, low grades would feed more schools into his pipeline for state intervention which in Indianapolis and Gary has resulted in for-profit corporations taking over schools, accompanied by discord, litigation and fragmented communities.

Mayors have complained that unfairly low school grades damage local economic development efforts to attract new jobs. The calibration of this A-F system is simply wrong. It will hurt our schools and our economy.

This fall implementation has seen major delays, the director of the program took another job in the midst of the roll out, and local school officials say they can’t get answers to their questions about the flawed growth statistics. We need a change. I support Glenda Ritz for State Superintendent who stands for a revised system of grading our schools.

Dr. Vic Smith
Indianapolis, IN

Indiana Citizens for Public Education

Indiana Education Reform: Community Conversation

Calling All Parents, Guardians, Community Stakeholders

“New Indiana Education Laws and our Children”

                             Tuesday, October 23, 2012, 6:00 p.m. – 7:30 p.m.

Light of the World Christian Church, 4646 N. Michigan Road, Indianapolis, IN

Join Us in Discussing How New Laws Affect Our Children’s Education

Special Guest Panelists:  Representative Greg Porter, City County Councilman Leroy Robinson, Washington Township Teacher Glenda Ritz,Ed Power CEO Marcus Robinson, Indianapolis Deputy Mayor Jason Kloth, and Attorney Brenda A. Roper, National Council of Negro Women

Be informed about how several of the following laws impact our children:

-Teacher Evaluation and Performance System

-School Accountability-New Federal Waiver of NCLB

-Growth Model                       -Charter School Expansion

-Discipline                               -Turnaround Schools

-Vouchers                                -Minority Teacher Recruitment

“We can’t ADVOCATE, if we don’t KNOW.”

Co-Sponsored by the Greater Indianapolis National Association of the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the Indianapolis Alliance of Black School Educators (IABSE), National Council of Negro Women (NCNW), and the Indianapolis Chapter of the National Coalition of 100 Black Women (NCBW)

DOE Seeks Public Comment

Educator Standards Public Comment


Posted: Fri, 03/16/2012 - 9:15am Updated: Thu, 03/22/2012 - 9:32am The Indiana Department of Education is seeking public comment in regards to two newly developed sets of standards. These standards are intended to serve in the preparation and assessment of preservice teachers or school counselors. Please note the Exceptional Needs-Mild Intervention Reading Instruction Standards are meant to serve as an addendum to the existing Exceptional Needs-Mild Intervention Standards which may be found HERE. Once you have read the draft standards below, please visit the survey site (link below) to contribute your feedback.

The IDOE will be collecting public comment on these standards between March 23 and April 23, 2012, at the following link: Survey for Public Comment on Educator Standards.

Indiana School Counselor Standards


Indiana Exceptional Needs-Mild Intervention Reading Instruction Standards

If you have further questions, please contact us at eel@doe.in.gov.

Educational Reform: Who Wins? Who Loses?

As part of the First Wednesdays Discussion Series (see below), a discussion of
“Educational Reform: Who Wins? Who Loses?” will take place, 12-12:50 pm, at WFYI Studios Community Room, 1630 N. Meridian, with panelists Teresa Meredith, VP, ISTA; Eugene White, Superintendent, IPS; Bill Chu, Deputy Superintendent, ISDE; and David Harris, CEO, The Mind Trust; moderated by Matt Tully, Indianapolis Star, sponsored by ACLU of Indiana. For more info, phone ACLU at 635-4059. See more info below



What is First Wednesdays?
The First Wednesday Series serves as a forum for discussion of contemporary issues in our society and features panelists who have subject matter expertise in the chosen topic. We are fortunate to have volunteers and sponsors from local organizations, public and private, who support this event so that we can bring this program to you. Our 2011 community sponsors are WFYI Studios, NUVO Newsweekly and Fraizer Designs. The public is welcome to attend.

From the Statehouse

Vic’s Statehouse Notes #67 February 25, 2011


Dear Friends,
Yesterday’s Indianapolis Star (Feb. 24th) listed eleven bills that House Democrats “have concerns about.” I have tracked four of these eleven bills on their journey through the House Education Committee: HB 1002, HB 1003, HB 1479, and HB 1584. Here are some details about these four bills that seem to be involved in the standoff:

House Bill 1002 – Charter School Expansion

In “Vic’s Notes #51-Jan. 21, 2011”, I detailed the testimony of 24 speakers in a five hour hearing, with 12 speaking for it and 12 speaking against it. It subsequently cleared the committee on a party line vote and was approved on third reading in the House, 59-37. Rep. Sullivan, a long time advocate for charter schools, coauthored the bill and was the only Democrat to vote for it. One Republican, Rep. Neese, voted against it. Dr. Bennett issued a press release announcing that the charter bill passed with bipartisan support. He might also have reported that it had bipartisan opposition.

The objection to the charter bill registered by the Indiana Coalition for Public Education was that it allowed private colleges and universities to be authorizers of charter schools. I and others in the ICPE believe that decisions committing public dollars to public charter schools must always be made by publicly elected or appointed entities, not by private college trustees who are not accountable to the public. It is bad public policy to let private entities determine the distribution of public money. Keep in mind, the authorizer gets to keep 3% of the public charter school tuition money for their trouble, so there is a financial incentive to push enrollment. Joel Hand, executive director of ICPE, gave strong testimony against allowing private colleges to be authorizers. In my own testimony, I argued the same point, saying that surely a new state charter board and many more mayors would expand charter schools enormously without the need to involve private colleges.

In a television interview, Kevin Brinegar, President of the Indiana Chamber of Commerce, said that only private colleges that had a School of Education would be allowed to authorize charter schools, but he was incorrect. The only restriction on private colleges is that they must be non-proprietary colleges, that is, not-for-profit colleges.

Interestingly in the long debate over second reading amendments, coauthor Rep. Sullivan sponsored the amendment to delete private colleges as authorizers. One might think that her months of faithful work with Speaker Bosma as a coauthor might give her enough respect to gain bipartisan support in ending this one highly divisive provision. It didn’t work. Her amendment attracted the support of only two Republicans, and it was soundly defeated. As HB 1002 now stands, any not-for-profit private college or university approved by the state board can authorize any number of charter schools.

House Bill 1003 – School Vouchers

Whether to privatize public education is the question of our generation. I absolutely oppose giving public tax dollars for private school tuition. House Bill 1003 is the tip of the spear for privatization, providing both private school vouchers and expanded private school tax credits. It would push privatization further than any other state has ever done, making Indiana “Exhibit #1” for undermining public education with privatization measures. It deserves to be on anybody’s list of bills to fight with fervor.

Faithful readers of “Vic’s Statehouse Notes” already know the irreparable harm that HB 1003 would do to public school students. Notes #52, #60, #62, #63, #64, #65 and #66 have focused on details of this bill. No more needs to be added here, except to say the latest talking points document against HB 1003 is attached for your use with legislators and colleagues.

House Bill 1479 – Turnaround Academies

In a normal legislative session – and this is clearly not a normal session – House Bill 1479 would be a centerpiece of debate and controversy. As the session has unfolded, it has received almost no attention. It would be the first legislative revision of Public Law 221, Indiana’s accountability system. PL221 was passed as a collaborative bipartisan measure in 1999. This revision is clearly not bipartisan.

Here are its major provisions:

1) Consequences including state take-over for schools in the lowest (F) category of PL221 would now apply to schools that have been in the lowest two categories (D or F). This change would immediately jump the number of schools eligible for state take-over from about 20 to about 220. There would no longer be any real difference between D schools and F schools. Both categories would get the same consequences. This bill would have the practical effect of reducing the number of PL 221 categories for school ratings from five to four: A,B,C and F.

2) The state could turn schools in these lowest categories over to Turnaround School Operators (TSO’s) under a contract for 5 years. The contract could also be renewed for 5 years.

3) Nothing in the bill prohibits Turnaround School Operators from being for-profit management companies. Joel Hand, executive director of ICPE, testified against allowing for-profit managers under this bill. Chairman Behning, in response, expressed support for for-profit companies in this arena.

It seems clear to me that with for-profit companies, the public never knows whether students are getting the funding they should get or whether the company is shorting the students to maximize profits for owners and shareholders. It is a fundamental, unsolvable problem with for-profit school management companies working with public school students and public school dollars: Isn’t any level of profit going to take money away that could be funding student programs? Private companies do not want all financial matters to be transparent to let the public know about their profit margin.

This is the point from the bill that the House Democrats seem to be focused on.

4) After the turnaround school is successfully released from the contract, HB 1479 would make it an independent school not linked to its original school district. This is a new concept, and it is hard to know what it would mean. The language on the General Assembly website still says it would be an “independent school corporation,” but an amendment from Chairman Behning last Monday (Feb. 21st) when the bill passed committee took out the concept of “corporation.” The committee approved the bill 8-3 on a party line vote.

Any bill that could create over 200 independent schools, a new concept, certainly deserves a high level of attention for a complete statewide discussion and debate.

House Bill 1584 – Deregulation

HB 1584 was a vehicle bill and has had a strange history under the radar. To this moment, if you go to HB 1584 on the General Assembly website and click on “latest printing”, it will simply tell you it is a vehicle bill, which means it has been filed as a blank shell for possible later use to insert new language. The language inserted originally allowed the state board of education to grant a waiver to any school for any statute except for a short list of protected statutes, all in the name of deregulation. Discussions were held about the vast scope of these waivers at a meeting few attended. The low attendance had to do with the fact that the meeting was announced at the end of a late Monday night floor session to be held the next morning. No vote was taken at that meeting.

Then by Monday morning (Feb. 21), Chairman Behning amended the bill to call for a study of deregulation to be completed by Nov. 1, 2011. To see the final version of the bill that the House Education Committee approved 9-2 on Feb. 21st, click on “Committee Report” on the General Assembly website information under HB 1584.

In this form, the bill certainly does not carry the incredible consequences that the other three bills carry.

I hope these notes will give you the information you need to discuss these matters with legislators and others in the Third House sessions this weekend and throughout the coming week. Keep up the good work of communicating with legislators during this crucial time!

Best wishes,

Vic Smith vic790@aol.com
INDIANA COALITION FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION

Indiana's Reform: Follow the Money

Bennett's education ties


Tony BennettAs the GOP-controlled Indiana General Assembly continues its assault on public education, Hoosiers should consider who benefits from the legislation under consideration. They'll see that Tony Bennett, superintendent of public instruction, would clearly be a winner.

The first-term Republican is backing an ambitious legislative agenda that includes private-school vouchers, expansion of charter schools, privatization of struggling schools and relaxed teacher-licensing requirements. Bennett told The Journal Gazette editorial board last week that he didn't really have a priority list for the bills. He said he instead wanted to focus on "comprehensive education reform."
"We've tried to do one thing at a time too much," he said. "My priority is to get it all accomplished."

Indeed, with Republican majorities in both the Indiana House and Senate, the state superintendent doesn't need to name a priority: He's finding enthusiastic support from GOP lawmakers for measures that have been dead on arrival in previous sessions. Approval of the legislation will surely boost the political profile of an official who some observers believe is positioning himself for a run for governor.

But Bennett, an unabashed charter-school supporter, also stands to benefit directly if the education bills are approved. His wife, Tina Bennett, is school improvement/new schools development consultant for the Indiana Public Charter Schools Association. Her work would presumably increase with the opening of new Indiana charter schools.

Tina Bennett is also assistant director of the Teach for America program at Marian University in Indianapolis. Marian's president is Daniel J. Elsener, who also happens to serve on the Indiana State Board of Education.
The small Catholic university was awarded a $500,000 principal training grant from the Indiana Department of Education last year. A spokeswoman for Tony Bennett told the Indianapolis Star at the time that the superintendent's wife wasn't involved in the program, but the contract proposal cites Marian's partnership with Teach for America as an example of prior leadership in the area of school turnaround programs.

Some in the education community say that Marian University had no experience in training school principals, while Indiana University, one of the unsuccessful bidders, has a well-established program in educational leadership. Critics don't want to be quoted on the record – they fear retribution from a powerful administration with the authority to control budgets and regulatory oversight.

Tony Bennett listed both Marian University and the charter school organization as his wife's employers on his handwritten financial disclosure form for 2010. Indiana law requires only that state officials disclose the names of a spouse's employers and the nature of their business.

It's left to voters to decide whether the official's responsibilities pose a conflict with his or her spouse's work. But in weighing education bills that will clearly benefit the state's charter school community and its turnaround school programs, Indiana lawmakers should take a closer look at who benefits from their support.

Why School Vouchers are Bad for Indiana

7 Reasons Why Public Dollars Should Stay with Public School Students

and Should NOT Be Diverted To Help Private Schools

#1 PUBLIC SCHOOLS ARE OPEN TO ALL - Public schools proudly take every student who comes to enroll.  Private schools can pick and choose among applicants and can reject any student without an explanation.  The inclusiveness of public schools requires support and resources.

#2 PUBLIC SCHOOLS ARE THE BEDROCK OF DEMOCRACY - Public schools have been the key institution responsible for teaching about and perpetuating our democracy.  Public schools are required by law to provide good citizenship instruction (IC20-30-5-6), to display the flag, and to “provide a daily opportunity to for students of the school corporation to voluntarily recite the Pledge of Allegiance in each classroom”, while in private schools, these matters are optional and unregulated.

#3 PUBLIC SCHOOLS NEED FINANCIAL STABILITY - Public schools need stable support to maintain and improve programs.  Any incentive created by the General Assembly to use public funds to attract students to private schools will mean less money for the public school since the money follows the child.  This dollar drain undercuts the stability of public school programs.

#4 PUBLIC SCHOOLS ARE CENTERS OF THE COMMUNITY - Public schools bring the entire community together.  Shifting to a publicly funded set of small private schools will fragment the community along religious and philosophical lines.

 
#5 PUBLIC SCHOOLS SERVE ALL INCOME LEVELS - Claims that vouchers are being directed to low income families ring hollow; the private school tax credit enacted in 2009 provided scholarships to families earning up to $81,586 for a family of four.  House Bill 1003 would raise that limit to $101,982 for a family of four.  Few would consider this to be “low-income.”

#6 PUBLIC SCHOOLS HAVE STEADILY IMPROVED - Claims that Indiana’s public school performance is declining are simply untrue.  Steady improvement over the past 20 years in Indiana’s public schools has been clearly documented.  Currently, Indiana’s public schools stand at or near their highest marks in history on attendance rate, SAT math, ACT, National Assessment, ISTEP+, and percentage earning Academic Honors diplomas and Core 40 diplomas.  Indiana outperforms Florida on 4^th & 8^th grade math, 8^th grade reading, and 4^th & 8^th grade science on the National Assessment.  Of course, more improvement is needed to meet global economic competition, but outsourcing students to private schools will undercut support and hamper further improvement in public schools.  Parents who press leaders to fund improvements for their public schools will simply be told to take their child to a private school if they don’t like their public school.

#7 PUBLIC SCHOOLS ARE NOT SECTARIAN - Regarding school choice, of course many families would choose religious schools for their children for religious reasons.  Taxpayers, however, should not be obligated to send students to parochial schools even if that is the choice of the parents.  That is why the Indiana Constitution says: “No money shall be drawn from the treasury, for the benefit of any religious or theological institution.”  Our public policies must avoid financial entanglements with religious schools. School choice should be offered within the arena of public schools, through neighborhood schools, magnet schools, tuition transfer to nearby districts, virtual schools and the 62 charter schools now available.

...Let your voice be heard!  Call or write your legislator.

How the "Logic" of Reform Works in Indiana

Good, thoughtful critique of Tony Bennett's mode of operation: misinformation, selective memory, and hyperbole in order to further an ideological agenda.  She's right, we have to rebut these efforts of bad information and speak with our neighbors and colleagues; we have to continue to tell the other side of the story.

STEPHANIE SALTER: Another batch of my status-quo-defending misinformation on schools

The Tribune-Star

TERRE HAUTE — The day after state schools chief Tony Bennett responded to my three-column education series, a longtime friend and veteran teacher called.

“I just read the superintendent’s rebuttal in the Tribune-Star,” my friend said. “All I can conclude from it is that you are a dumbass. Welcome to the club. Anybody who doesn’t buy into his vision of education reform is considered a dumbass.”

The superintendent didn’t use such a coarse term in his opinion piece, but my friend is right. Ignorance (or worse) was implied throughout Bennett’s column. Among the charges: My series “completely misinterprets” the Indiana Department of Education’s “efforts to provide all Hoosier students with quality education opportunities.”

For those who missed it, I wrote what thousands of Indiana teachers know in their heart — that Bennett and his boss, Gov. Mitch Daniels, play fast and loose with statistics and anecdotal evidence in their committed campaign to paint Hoosier schools as “a mess” in need of radical reform. The last of the three columns consisted entirely of quotes from teachers, all over the state, who responded to the first two pieces.

Although Bennett accused me of repeatedly spreading “both inaccurate information and fear,” he provided not a single example of either. If the errors were in my Dec. 5 piece — a fact-filled attempt to counter a few of the gross misrepresentations offered by Bennett and Daniels — the superintendent didn’t say. If the alleged misinformation was in the fact-filled Dec. 5 sidebar by retired educator Vic Smith, none of that made Bennett’s essay, either.

In another omission, Bennett waxed poetic about a large, Dec. 9 gathering of educators at Deming Elementary in Terre Haute. He said he left with “an overwhelming feeling of optimism regarding IDOE’s efforts to provide all Hoosier students with an academically rigorous and globally competitive education.”

Sounds like a real join-hands-and-sing-Kumbaya scene, right? Typical of his (and Daniel’s) selective memory, Bennett left out the part about the thunderous ovation Vigo County schools superintendent Dan Tanoos received that night when he feistily challenged the state chief to “make us feel like you are advocating on our behalf instead of against us.”

Neither did Bennett mention West Vigo High School Principal Tom Balitiewicz’s refusal to wear the mantle of stumbling failure that Bennett and Daniels seem determined to hang around every school district’s neck.

Bennett also chose not to recount a stellar point made by Patty Curley, who has taught in Vigo public schools since 1984. Describing stints at two schools with very different socio-economic makeups, Curley said that if she had been judged as a teacher based on students’ test scores — as Bennett and Daniels advocate — she would have been deemed a bad one at the lower economic school and a “very highly effective teacher” at the wealthier school. Her teaching skills would not have changed, Curley said, only the situation in which she employed them.

Bennett did offer one curious example in his essay to indicate that I choose to short-change children so I can “defend the status quo.” Twenty of Indiana’s “consistently low-performing schools are at risk of facing state intervention at the end of the school year,” he wrote. Acknowledging that those 20 schools make up “only about 1 percent of all Indiana schools,” Bennett nonetheless scolded me and my ilk, saying, “we must not forget the thousands of real students held captive in those classrooms.” My series, he wrote, “ignores the plight of children in desperate need of better schooling.”

See the way the logic works?

I show in print how the governor and schools chief wrongly portray all of Indiana public education as an oil spill in need of a Herculean cleanup — the BP disaster metaphor is Bennett’s, not mine — and that makes me a compassion-challenged misinformation peddler who cares nothing for thousands of kids in a handful of schools that really are failing.

I show with numbers, studies and legitimate context that Indiana public education, overall, is pretty much in the middle of the nation’s pack — not ready for life support as Daniels and Bennett seem to imply every time they get near a PowerPoint — and I become another selfish, change-resistant defender of the status quo.

Another dumbass.

Like many elected and appointed leaders these days, Daniels and Bennett have an education agenda — and it looks like major restructuring better suited for a failing mega-business than for a public school system. The cruel irony is, some of the system’s thorniest problems are the result of often conflicting standards and benchmarks foisted upon educators by state and federal legislators who could not survive one day in a real classroom.

To sell such reform to taxpayers, bad news must be emphasized (or presented out of context), good news must be ignored, and people who question wholesale change for everyone must be vilified.

As I learned from scores of e-mails, letters and phone calls, many of Indiana’s most dedicated public school teachers and administrators feel beaten down by the Bennett-Daniels’ campaign to reform them. These teachers contend with social and economic problems that educators of my era could not have imagined in their worst nightmares. Whether it’s numerous students with severe learning disabilities or kids whose parents sell their teacher-donated clothes to buy methamphetamine, 21st century public schools demand that teachers use everything they’ve learned in college — and in life — every day.

A recent, telling statistic: In 2006, 36 percent of Hoosier students qualified for free or reduced-price lunch, the litmus for what we now call economic hardship. This year, the percentage is more than 45 percent. Do you suppose that factor influences a kid’s ability to pass ISTEP?

Here’s a more encouraging statistic, regarding graduation rates, which frequently are cited as dismal by Daniels: Hoosier rates tumbled in 2006 to 76.4 percent from 89.5 percent, when the state recalibrated its method of graduation accounting. They have been rising ever since, recovering to 84.1 percent this year. The increase includes the Indianapolis Public School system, which still has an alarmingly low rate (58.3 percent), but has risen 10 percent in four years.

As a Fort Wayne Journal Gazette editorial put it: “The figures show steady and encouraging progress statewide — without the influence of vouchers, merit pay or teacher evaluations tied to test scores.”

After my series, message after message included a request to “keep telling our side of the story.” I understand the urgency, but even if I were not taking the next few months off, I couldn’t counter the misinformation about public education that flows from Indianapolis and Washington. Teachers, principals and district superintendents have to find a way to do that.

Teachers, let your unions bargain for your contracts, but hire or draft a team of knowledgeable spokespeople not connected to the unions who can rebut skewed sound bites and twisted statistics every time one is uttered. Speak up to your neighbors, your church members, your students’ parents and your local newspaper when you hear another politician accuse you of something you know isn’t true — like the governor’s repeated claim about how poorly Hoosier students perform on national reading and math tests.

The best defense is a good offense. Make certain all those incoming members of the Indiana General Assembly understand that if they rubber-stamp unproven, radical education reforms — instead of funding proven approaches such as full-day kindergarten — they will pay in the next election.

Parents and other taxpayers, at the very least, exercise some skepticism. A clear picture of education requires context. Examine statistics; find out whether an accuser is talking about 20 failing schools or an entire state system. Beware of open-and-shut vilification. Don’t accept a one-size-fits-all solution from either side of the issue. If you are confused or concerned about a politician-reformer’s charges, ask a teacher you trust to weigh in.

In the meantime, if someone implies you’re a dumbass because you think the majority of Indiana’s public educators are doing a good job and want to do even better — smile. You are in excellent and plentiful company. Welcome to the club.

LINK:

Vouchers in Indiana

"In the cities, vouchers would quickly solidify a two-tiered educational system consisting of nonpublic schools and pauper schools.  That development would impoverish us all, because it would represent an abandonment of efforts to improve education for disadvantaged youngsters, who are already a majority in most US cities."
-Mary Anne Raywid, Public Choice, yes; Vouchers, no! 1987

Mitch Daniels Voucher Plan
"The voucher proposal — backed by state Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Bennett — is sure to be controversial but is expected to be well-received by a majority of Republicans in the Indiana House and Senate. Two years ago, Republicans won approval for a much more modest program that provides tax credits to individuals who contribute to private school scholarships."


Discuss:

Bennett silent on dramatic graduation gains

A letter to the editor at the IndyStar points to the troubling evidence that more is going on with Supt. Bennett/Mitch Daniels and their education agenda.  Certainly statistics can be manipulated (a critique offered in the comments) but NCLB has improved our ability to report on actual student achievement.  The problem is that findings showing progress don't fit the party line of blaming teachers and claiming the system is irretreivably broken.  We all need to be asking these hard questions as this agenda moves forward.
___________________________________
I'd like to congratulate the public school students and teachers in Marion County and across the state for the dramatic gain in the graduation rates. As a recently retired teacher who was involved in implementing the tougher state standards that are now in place, it is heartwarming to see students and schools meet the challenges and succeed.


There will always be those who say the rate is still too low. Fine. Of course we want all students to graduate, so we just keep working toward that goal.

What I find most disappointing is the lack of acknowledgement from state Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Bennett about this accomplishment. Bennett's silence, when taken in the context of the agenda he intends to put forward in the next legislative session, is further evidence that his unspoken intention is to dismantle the public school system in the state.

What other conclusion could be drawn? An acknowledgment of successful and improving public schools certainly doesn't support the need for more charter schools.

Jay Hill,  Indianapolis

Grading Education Reform

....an interesting presentation of some of the faulty logic in contemporary school reform.  Something similar was suggested when the IDOE decided to get in the business of mandated the curriculum of Schools of Education--would it even be thinkable to imagine that the state would do this for the School of Medicine?  Thoughts?

My View: Instead of slogans, try this to improve schools

Written by Steve Fox

For their efforts in school reform, I would like to award a grade of F to: Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Arne Duncan, all members of Congress who have voted for No Child Left Behind
legislation, all state governors and legislators who have supported standardized testing, accountability and choice as the answers to education problems, and all state superintendents of public instruction who have supported those simplistic answers.

That grade should result, at the minimum, in lowered pay for these policymakers, possibly reassignment to new jobs or, in some cases, dismissal. If any are already retired or have been fired by the voters, then we can require them to do public service, assisting teachers in their overcrowded, underfunded classrooms.

I apologize for any hurt feelings or damaged careers that result from my rigorous grading. However, we must put students at the center and not worry about the concerns of adults.

Now let's move on to some meaningful school reform.
Students are people, not widgets. We cannot evaluate student learning the way we might evaluate production on an assembly line. Try this interesting analogy. Give all the doctors in Indianapolis 180
patients each. These doctors have one year to work with these patients and improve their health. By the end of the year, we would ideally like to see 100 percent of those patients with passing scores on all
their medical tests. And we would like the doctors to spend at least 25 percent of their time with each patient doing repeated tests. Also, these doctors must follow medical and health procedures designed by policymakers who have no medical training. These doctors should not belong to the American Medical Association, because we all know the AMA is a selfish organization that cares only about defending bad doctors. Also, we are not interested in the patients' overall health, or any squishy talk about holistic medicine or mind-body connections or social conditions that affect health.

Just deliver the results, please.

The ineffectiveness of Merit Pay

Remember this as the Bennett DOE continues to follow the path of market-based reforms.  Paying for performance sounds good and seems to make sense--except for the pesky little detail that it doesn't work.

Study: Teacher Bonuses Fail To Boost Test Scores

by THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

text size A A A

ATLANTA September 21, 2010, 04:33 pm ET

Offering big bonuses to teachers failed to raise students' test scores in a three-year study released Tuesday that calls into question the Obama administration's push for merit pay to improve education.

The study, conducted in the metropolitan Nashville school system by Vanderbilt University's National Center on Performance Incentives, was described by the researchers as the nation's first scientifically rigorous look at merit pay for teachers.

It found that students whose teachers were offered bonuses of up to $15,000 a year for improved test scores registered the same gains on standardized exams as those whose teachers were given no such incentives.

"I think most people agree today that the current way in which we compensate teachers is broken," said Matthew Springer, executive director of the Vanderbilt center and lead researcher on the study. "But we don't know what the better way is yet."

The study comes as the Obama administration encourages school systems to link teacher pay and tenure to how students perform on tests and other measures of achievement.

The researchers looked at fifth- through eighth-grade math teachers from 2007 to 2009. A group of about 300 teachers started out in the study; half were eligible for the bonuses, the other half were not.

The bonuses were given out based on improvements in scores on Tennessee's standardized exam, which is used by the state as part of the federal No Child Left Behind requirements.

Springer was quick to point out that his study looked only at individual bonuses, not extra pay doled out to teams of teachers or an entire school. He said more research is needed.

"Some people were initially disappointed when they saw the results, but quickly turned around and said, 'Well, at least we finally have an answer,'" he said. "It means pay can't do it alone."

The U.S. Education Department called the study too narrowly focused.

"It only looked at the narrow question of whether more pay motivates teachers to try harder," said spokeswoman Sandra Abrevaya. "What we are trying to do is change the culture of teaching by giving all educators the feedback they need to get better while rewarding and incentivizing the best to teach in high-need schools, hard-to-staff subjects."

The American Federation of Teachers praised the study and argued that teachers need other resources, including better training and more supportive administrators.

"Merit pay is not the panacea that some would like it to be. There are no quick fixes in education," said union president Randi Weingarten. "Providing individual bonuses for teachers standing alone does not work."

Teachers unions have historically opposed merit pay, arguing that test scores are not an accurate measure of student achievement, that financial rewards could pit teachers against each other, and that administrators could use bonuses to reward favorites and punish others.

Jennifer Conboy, a high school social studies teacher in Miami, called merit pay a "baseless fad."

"Merit pay is an excuse to resist the attempt of teachers to get fair pay in the first place," the 37-year-old Conboy said. "On a personal level, merit pay would do nothing to me. I took this job because I think education is the bedrock of a functioning democracy, and if I cared about democracy — which I do — then I had a responsibility to do whatever I could to strengthen education."

Only a few schools and districts across the country have merit pay, and in some states the idea is effectively illegal. The Obama White House hoped to encourage more states to pass merit pay laws with its $4.35 billion "Race to the Top" grant competition.

Some states tried to enact merit bonuses for teachers, but most, like Georgia, were unable to get the necessary laws passed. Colorado passed a controversial law that ties teacher pay to student performance and allows the state to strip tenure from low-performing instructors, but the state did not win the Race to the Top grant money it was counting on to help carry out the law.

Only about half of the 300 teachers originally in the Nashville study were left at the end of the three years because some retired, moved to other schools or stopped teaching math. About 40 teachers got bonuses each year. Overall, the researchers said, test scores rose modestly for both groups of students during the three-year study, suggesting that the financial incentives made no difference.

"It's not enough to say, 'I'll pay you more if you do better.' You've got to help people know how to do better," said Amy Wilkins, vice president of the Education Trust, a Washington think tank. "Absolutely we should reward them once they do better, but to think merit pay alone will get them there is insane."

(This version CORRECTS amount of Race to the Top program.)