Friday, November 22, 2013

Action: November 22, 2013

Let's continue to remind our Governor that the citizens of Indiana voted for and support Glenda Ritz.

1. Buy a book of stamps.
2. Print up suggested script.
3. Stamp envelopes.
4. Give to friends.

We are going to keep reposting this all week. Our letters and calls are making many people in Indy nervous. These people are responsible for many, many bad policies and destructive policies. If you haven't written yet, please write today. Please let them know that you are paying attention and that you vote.

Every citizen who supports Glenda Ritz should mail a letter to Governor Pence and the State Board of Education to communicate our disapproval. Please keep your letters polite and avoid vitriol.

The letter should state:

The citizens of Indiana elected Glenda Ritz. We do not support the actions taken by our Governor and the State Board of Education. Please begin to work with Glenda Ritz.
  • Office of Governor Pence, Statehouse, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204-2797
  • Glenda Ritz, Room 229 State House,Indianapolis IN 46204
  • Tony Walker, 363 S. Lake Street, Gary, IN 46403
  • David Freitas, 1700 Mishawaka Avenue, South Bend, IN 46634
  • Carl Whicker, Riverview Middle School, 2465 Waterworks Road, Huntington, IN 46750
  • Sarah O’Brien, River Birch Elementary School, 5456 E. 75 N, Avon, IN 46123
  • Andrea Neal, 7034 N. Park Ave, Indianapolis, IN 46220
  • Brad Oliver, Indiana Wesleyan Univerisity, 1900 W. 50th St. Marion, IN 46935
  • Daniel Elsener, Marian University, 3200 Cold Springs Road, Indianapolis, IN 4622
  • B.J. Watts, 11148 Saint Wendel Road, Evansville, IN 47720
  • Troy Albert, Henryville Jr.Sr. High School, 213 N Ferguson, Henryville, IN 47126

Saturday, November 16, 2013

Action: November 16, 2013

Let's start a movement to remind our Governor that the citizens of Indiana voted for and support Glenda Ritz.

Every citizen who supports Glenda Ritz should mail a letter to Governor Pence and the State Board of Education to communicate our disapproval. Please keep your letters polite and avoid vitriol.

The letter should state:

The citizens of Indiana elected Glenda Ritz. We do not support the actions taken by our Governor and the State Board of Education. Please begin to work with Glenda Ritz.
  • Office of Governor Pence, Statehouse, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204-2797
  • Glenda Ritz, Room 229 State House,Indianapolis IN 46204
  • Tony Walker, 363 S. Lake Street, Gary, IN 46403
  • David Freitas, 1700 Mishawaka Avenue, South Bend, IN 46634
  • Carl Whicker, Riverview Middle School, 2465 Waterworks Road, Huntington, IN 46750
  • Sarah O’Brien, River Birch Elementary School, 5456 E. 75 N, Avon, IN 46123
  • Andrea Neal, 7034 N. Park Ave, Indianapolis, IN 46220
  • Brad Oliver, Indiana Wesleyan Univerisity, 1900 W. 50th St. Marion, IN 46935
  • Daniel Elsener, Marian University, 3200 Cold Springs Road, Indianapolis, IN 4622
  • B.J. Watts, 11148 Saint Wendel Road, Evansville, IN 47720
  • Troy Albert, Henryville Jr.Sr. High School, 213 N Ferguson, Henryville, IN 47126

NEIFPE Speaks To Indiana School Board

NEIFPE members Donna Roof and Phyllis Bush spoke to the Indiana State Board of Education on Wednesday, November 13, 2013.
(From Anthony Cody's blog entry, Educators Flunk the School Grading System in Indiana.)

Donna Roof: Time to Bring Back the Joy of Learning


I am a public school teacher. I am a breast cancer survivor. I dreamed as a little girl of the day I would be a teacher. I never dreamed as a woman that I would one day be a cancer survivor. So now I am both and proud that I am.

I speak to you today as both, for you see there are times these days that being an educator is more challenging, more stressful, more worrisome, more exhausting than being a cancer patient/survivor. I never ever in my wildest imagination dreamed that I would one day be in a fight for my life. I also never ever dreamed I’d be in the fight of a lifetime to save my students’ joy of learning, my public schools, my profession.

I didn’t just wake up one day, and my lump was there. It had been there all along, undetected. The same holds true for what is happening to public education. The education reform movement has been there all along, too, mostly undetected. But now, it has metastasized at unparalleled speed and is no longer hidden.

I have seen how my having cancer affects those around me. I have seen and, sadly, continue to see how the siphoning off of public funds from public schools, an A-F grade system to label schools, and more and more testing affect my students, my colleagues, my district, my neighborhood, my community, my city. Nevertheless, we persevere and succeed because that’s what public schools do.

The lessons learned as a cancer patient/survivor are plentiful. Perhaps the most important lesson is that I learned not to let the cancer define who I am. In the same manner I will not allow all that is happening in education define who I am as a teacher although I know there are those who like to paint me with their brush of pejoratives like union thug and status quo.

I know what kind of teacher I am, for I hold that belief in my heart, and there is no way to measure that. Teaching is much more than my career; it is my passion. Everyday I enter my classroom believing I am a master teacher, for if I didn’t hold true to that claim, I shouldn’t be there.

Even more importantly, I refuse to let all that is happening in education define my students, my school, my district, my community, my city. My students have so much potential. My students’ lives are more complicated than I can ever begin to imagine. They overcome seemingly insurmountable obstacles and are successful because they meet their challenges. If you could see my students, you would know what I mean. They are so much more than data points. They are unique individuals with dreams and goals. I so want them to dare “to color outside the lines” and not just simply bubble in a test circle. I welcome any politician or state board member to come to my classroom—not for a photo op but to teach.

My physicians saved my life and brought back my joy of living. It is time to save the life of public education and bring back the joy of learning. Give all students equal educational opportunities. Our future and our democracy depend on public schools. As Martin Luther King, Jr. once stated, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

Phyllis Bush: Stop Labeling Schools
We all know that labels are important; in fact, as consumers, we demand truth in labeling. However, when it comes to labeling our children, that is indeed another story.

Let me give you an example. When I first moved to Fort Wayne in the 1970s, South Side High School was a storied old school, heavily laden with tradition and with a great amount of community pride. By the time I began teaching at South Side in the late 1970s, the neighborhood was beginning to change, and the area was rapidly being viewed as "an inner city school." Despite being in an area of high poverty, a sense of community, of family, and of tradition was alive and well at our school. However, even back then, whenever some horrific news event happened on the south side of town--whether it was a car accident, a shooting, or a robbery--the media was always quick to display the stately old columns of the South Side facade as the backdrop for the story.

At that time many of my students were so incensed by seeing the reputation of their alma mater besmirched by the association of the image of South Side High School with criminal activity that they indignantly wrote letters of protest to the newspapers, and I proudly posted their letters on my bulletin board. Recently I was reminded of this when a shooting occurred on the south side of town. When I turned on the news that evening, I was once again greeted with an image of the South Side facade as a backdrop even though there was no connection between the school and the crime. Interestingly enough, I was heartened to see that former students of mine were once again expressing their outrage (but this time on Facebook) at having the school which they loved labeled in such an unfair manner.

On a similar note, even though the A-F bipartisan panel has done an excellent job of wrestling with the difficult question of how to measure student growth against fixed standards, there are still fatal flaws in this system which determines winners and losers among schools, teachers, and students. While I know that the A-F Accountability letter grade rating system is now a part of Indiana state law, I am still bothered by the labeling of schools, of students, of teachers, and of neighborhoods.

All of this leads me to ask this question. Why in the world do we need another label to decide what the quality of a school is? Do we really want to punish and reward schools and teachers according to demographics?

Interestingly enough, a few weeks ago Indiana Senator Dennis Kruse (chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Education) expressed his concern about testing at the Faith and Politics Forum here in Fort Wayne; he said that he never really liked either the A-F Grading System or the ISTEP tests. So, let me get this straight: if the chairman of the Education Select Committee is skeptical of these measurements, shouldn't the State Board and the General Assembly consider slowing down this process or at the very least consider creating a pilot program to study the effects of these programs?

Having said all of the above, do we really want a system which measures dubious data? Of course, we can change it and rearrange it, but such a system leaves much to be desired. We can slap a fresh coat of paint on a broken down car, and the car still won't run, or in the words of the philosopher, Sarah Palin: "You can put lipstick on a pig, and it is still a pig."

Rather than making a seriously flawed system only marginally less so, why not ask teachers and community members what they think makes a successful school? Why not measure the qualities that we value rather than meaningless numbers that can be quantified.

Vic’s Statehouse Notes #160 – November 14, 2013

Dear Friends,

The battle for control of education policy in Indiana was on full display at the end of yesterday’s State Board meeting. A motion to move up the public hearings on Common Core standards to January instead of February and to empower the State Board staff in the Governor’s office to run the hearings was ruled “improper” by Superintendent Ritz.

Board members would not accept her ruling and would not move on to the next agenda item, making numerous comments perhaps summarized when Board Member David Freitas loudly said: “You are not the Attorney General. No chair can stop us from voting.” Superintendent Ritz again called for the next agenda item, but when two more volunteered comments on the Common Core issue, she announced “This meeting is adjourned.”

I have watched nearly all State Board meetings since 1997, and I can tell you that I have never witnessed a meeting like what I saw yesterday. The battle for control of education in Indiana is now in full view. Ironically, the conflict surfaced on the same day that the Indianapolis Star featured in its banner headline the struggle between Governor Pence and Superintendent Ritz for control of education policy.

A Negotiated Agreement on the A-F Panel Report

The end of the meeting was surprising in light of the fact that what I had thought would be the most difficult issue of the day had already been settled. HEA 1427 said that “Not later than November 15, 2013, the state board shall establish new categories or designations of school performance under the requirements of this chapter to replace 511 IAC 6.2-6.“ In light of this language and with specific rules still in development, Superintendent Ritz brought a motion to the meeting as follows:

“The State Board of Education adopts the Accountability System Review Panel's recommendations,
establishing new accountability categories.

The State Board of Education further recognizes that a validation and statistical analysis process may lead to follow up recommendations to the formulas that support the categories as they are built and validated through the beta testing period of the new model design."

State Board Member Brad Oliver moved that the first sentence be changed to read: “… recommendations for new accountability categories.” He also moved that the second sentence be changed to read “will lead” instead of “may lead”.

It appeared consensus was forming on these two changes. Board Member Gordon Hendry then recommended that the meeting take a break while State Board staff meet with Superintendent Ritz to work out final language. Board Member Dan Elsener asked for language about the role of the Board’s staff. He said there should be “no confusion about Board staff involvement.” Superintendent Ritz agreed to a break and said the meeting would resume at 10:00am.

About 10:15, she brought the meeting back to order and announced that additional language had been added that she agreed with, along with a final sentence that she did not agree with: “Board staff and Department staff will collaborate with technical experts about the work of the Panel and ultimately the Board.” She wanted the motion to reference only the Panel and its work rather than the staff, but she said she had agreed to put the issue before the board. Board Member Oliver amended his motion to include the final sentence and the other additional language, and the vote was taken. The motion passed 9-1, with Superintendent Ritz voting for the motion despite having a sentence she opposed. Andrea Neal voted no after explaining her belief that the federal government controls education and the College Board determines the curriculum.

With that vote, which included a compromise by Superintendent Ritz regarding involvement by the State Board staff, the State Board can say that the General Assembly’s November 15th deadline was met.

Common Core Timeline Changes

After reports were given about Common Core review committees on English/Language Arts and Math, Brad Oliver presented his concerns and a motion about the timetable for the Common Core review and the need for quicker Higher Education review and more State Board control in the process.

I recommend that you see for yourself what happened next to draw your own conclusions. Go to the State Board of Education section of the IDOE website to see the video of the meeting and to get the full picture of what my notes outline below. I took notes as fast as possible, but of course I could not capture a full transcript.

My conclusion is that Superintendent Ritz ruled the motion improper because it empowered the State Board staff to do tasks that state law explicitly assigns to the Department. To stop further erosion of her Department’s authority, she declared the motion improper and tried to move on to the next agenda item. The board members vigorously objected and refused to move on. Superintendent Ritz declared a recess to end the discussion, but that didn’t work. After the recess, the same controversy broke out again on the same topic. At that point, Superintendent Ritz announced that the meeting would adjourn.

Here are the details from the notes I was taking as fast as I could write:

The Proposed Motion

The first change requested by Brad Oliver was that the public hearings on the Common Core standards be completed by January 31st. Currently, the timetable calls for public hearings in February. Superintendent Ritz expressed concern that January hearings would mean that the final recommendations of how to change the math and E/LA standards would not be available for the public to comment on, which was the main point in holding public hearings in February after the review panels make their recommendations.

Secondly, the motion put the State Board staff in charge of the public hearings and the standards review. Superintendent Ritz objected vigorously to this part of the motion, reading from state statutes that “the Department shall develop” and review standards for approval first by the Roundtable and then by the State Board. She said that by state law it is not the State Board’s role or the State Board’s staff role to develop standards and therefore she would rule the motion improper because it “inserts the board’s staff to oversee the process.”

Dan Elsener asked to hear from the State Board’s attorney on this matter. Superintendent Ritz did not recognize the attorney to speak.

Cari Wicker said “You have your attorney. Why can’t I ask my attorney?”

Superintendent Ritz said, “I am taking this to the Attorney General.” She said that the Department has the obligation to review standards and that there need not be a “back and forth debate.”

Board Attorney Michelle Goff then rose and started speaking. Superintendent Ritz said, “Michelle, please sit down.”

She sat down.

Superintendent Ritz then called for a “quick recess” until 12:05.

After the recess, she reiterated that the motion was improper and she would ask for an advisory opinion from the Attorney General.

Brad Oliver expressed his disappointment and explained his concern about “getting standards right.”

Superintendent Ritz said she is ruling the motion improper and is ready to move the next agenda item.

Gordon Hendry then called “point of order.” He proposed amending the motion to make it subject to the Attorney General’s review. He said this would move the process forward.

Superintendent Ritz said, “I am ruling the motion improper.”

Dan Elsener then said, “This is bad leadership. We wouldn’t do something illegal. We have a motion and a second. That is not the proper role of the chair.”

David Freitas said, “Let the Board speak. Can we call for a vote? You are not the Attorney General. No chair can stop us from voting.”

Superintendent Ritz called for the next item on the agenda, listed as “Common Core Guidance to Schools.”

State Board Attorney Michelle Goff then rose to say that meeting procedures negotiated with the Governor’s office don’t allow the Superintendent to rule a motion to be improper.

Dan Elsener said, “You can’t behave like this.”

Superintendent Ritz said, “This meeting is adjourned.” It was 12:15. She stood up and left the room. Her staff left the room. All nine of the Board members remained in the room.

The video staff started tearing down the technical equipment. David Freitas asked the technician to keep the video equipment rolling, a step noticeable only because the technician declined in a loud response.

The Meeting Sans Chair

About 12:20, Board Secretary Dan Elsener convened the Board members, saying that “we have a motion and a second.”

Brad Oliver asked who has the authority to set policy if the chair has left. He expressed concern about the risk of perceptions. He said we should keep “decorum at a high level.”

B.J. Watts, Dan Elsener, David Freitas and Cari Wicker all made comments. Board Attorney Michelle Goff recommended taking a recess to check procedures with the Attorney General to “make sure what we are doing is appropriate.” It was 12:25.

At 12:30, Board Secretary Dan Elsener reconvened the group, saying “We have to make a decision: vote on the motion or adjourn.”

Brad Oliver said we should not vote without approval from the Attorney General.

B.J. Watts said we should agree to disagree.

Cari Wicker said we have put politics aside. This is not a political issue.

B.J. Watts said no one could have been more respectful than Brad Oliver in preparing his motion.

Gordon Hendry said he was deeply disappointed, especially after the Board had found common ground to pass the A-F motion.

Claire Fidian Green told the group that procedures say that an emergency meeting can be called by the chair or by two members of the Board.

David Freitas asked to vote on the motion.

At this point, Brad Oliver withdrew his motion, saying we should be “respectful” and “take the high road.”

Dan Elsener then asked for a motion to adjourn, which was made by Gordon Hendry. It was 12:40.

Perhaps now you will want to see the video to check this scene out for yourself.

The Choice for Indiana: The Big Picture

Through all the give and take, the conflicting educational philosophies of Superintendent Ritz and Governor Pence have never been clearer. Gerald Bracey called them “Dueling Visions” in his 2003 book entitled What You Should Know about the War Against America’s Public Schools.

Governor Pence wants a competitive marketplace of schools fueled by private school vouchers and school choice. This will slowly diminish public education and upgrade private schools with taxpayer money.

Superintendent Ritz wants to focus public money on public schools to bring equity and high quality to every public school. This will upgrade public education and counter the shift toward privatization.

Indiana’s direction in this arena has been the educational policy question of our generation. A strong turn toward privatization was made in 2011, giving state money to private school vouchers for the first time in 160 years. The Governor has a strong team to continue expanding what was started in 2011.

To say that education should not be political is disingenuous. Both sides have deeply held political positions which go to the heart of our democracy and our economy. In a democracy, the voters must set the direction.

In this generational struggle between strongly held visions, I stand with Glenda Ritz along with 1.3 million voters who put her in office. I am an advocate for public education, and I oppose privatization.

My neighbor greeted me as I got in the car to come to yesterday’s meeting, saying she thinks voters didn’t really realize how much Governor Pence could control education by appointing the State Board. Now they know. The Center for Education and Career Innovation, home of the State Board staff with a $5 million budget, was created by an executive order of the Governor without any legislative debate.

The battle for control is now in full view. At yesterday’s meeting, the visions were truly dueling.

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

Best wishes,

Vic Smith

ICPE is working to promote public education and oppose the privatization of schools in the Statehouse. We thank all who came to the three membership meeting this fall in Indianapolis, Lafayette and Bloomington. They were all excellent discussions! Many renewed their memberships at the meetings. If you have not done so since July 1, the start of our new membership year, we urge you to renew by going to our website.

We need additional support to carry on our advocacy for public education. We need additional members and additional donations. We need your help!

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

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

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

Vic’s Statehouse Notes #159 – November 11, 2013

Dear Friends,

At the November 8th State Board meeting, the plan for school letter grades from the bipartisan panel was presented by co-chairs State Superintendent Glenda Ritz and Southwest Allen Superintendent Steve Yager. The panel did a good job of wrestling with the difficult question of how to measure student growth against fixed standards without resorting to peer comparisons, the fatal flaw of the current system. The panel has proposed two measures of growth: categorical growth and targeted growth.

According to the report given Friday, the definition of the targeted growth concept is still in development. Derek Redelman of the Indiana Chamber of Commerce told me that the unfinished portions of the plan led him to cast his vote against approval of the plan, which the panel approved by a vote of 16-1. Below are the details of the two growth measures and my proposal for completing the definition of targeted growth.

Categorical Growth


Categorical growth divides the domains of “Did Not Pass”, “Pass”, and “Pass+” into levels and then gives credit to students for achieving a higher level from Year 1 to Year 2. In this way, schools can get credit for strong improvement by students who have still not reached the “Pass” mark. Alternately, schools can be penalized when those not passing fall even further from the pass line.

The example in the report came from Alaska. Currently Indiana has set scale scores that define “Pass” and “Pass+”. Based on the Alaska example, Indiana would divide the portion of students below the pass line into three groups: “Did Not Pass 1”, “Did Not Pass 2”, “Did Not Pass 3”, with “Did Not Pass 1” being the lowest scoring students. Presumably, the additional cut scores would be set by mathematically trisecting the current range of scale scores below the pass line.

Next the scale scores between “Pass” and “Pass+” would be bisected to create “Pass 1” and “Pass 2” levels, with “Pass 1” defined as the low pass level and “Pass 2” defined as the high pass level.

Finally, the “Pass+” scale scores would be trisected to create levels called “Pass+ 1”, “Pass+ 2”, and “Pass+ 3”, with “Pass+ 1” as the lowest level of the Pass+ students.

This creates a system of eight categories. Points would be given to every student based on their movement up or down in these eight categories from Year 1 to Year 2. Points are based on the idea that if a student passes the test one year (Pass 1) and then passes again at the same level the next year (Pass 1), they would get 100 points. If they do better and move to a higher category, they get more points. If they do worse and move down, they get fewer points. The points table used in Alaska was included in the panel’s report.

This system is commendable for being completely criterion-referenced, with no hint of peer comparisons or quotas. If a student does better, they will get more points. If a student does worse, they will get fewer points. All students could potentially get more points.

Targeted Growth: Still in Development

Targeted growth was defined in the panel’s report as “the minimum growth expected for an individual student, as measured by performance on two consecutive assessments.” The importance of the phrase “growth to proficiency” comes into play here. The panel report referred to the slope of the line from a student’s score in Year 1 to the proficiency line stretched out over, for example, a three year period, indicating that the student is on target to pass in three years.

According to the report on Friday, the panel is still working to define the minimum growth expected for each student. When they define it, they plan to report the percentage of students with scores for two years who have met targeted growth.

Targeted Growth – A Proposal

After reflecting on the incomplete development of this targeted growth metric as reported on Friday, I offer this proposal to complete the task. I do this in hopes that members of the panel will read these notes and that this is the quickest way to share these ideas with the panel and others working to finalize a criterion-referenced measure of growth. The proposed answer to the problem comes in three parts:
1) What Should Be the Targeted Growth for Students Below the Pass Line?

This part is clear. For these students, the fixed target for growth should be the pass line. The presumption is that growth is expected for the student to reach the pass line in three years. A trajectory line between the student’s initial score and the passing score three years out will determine the targeted growth expected each year.
This makes sense for general education students who have fallen behind. For special education students who have a cognitive disability, there is no evidence that a steady catch-up pace can be expected.
2) What Should Be the Targeted Growth for Students Above the Pass Line but Below Pass+?
This group should be expected to continue to grow at least the same level. If a student scores two scale scores above the pass line in Year 1, normal growth would mean that the student would also score two scale points above the pass line in Year 2. That would be the expected growth. There is no need for a three-year trajectory line with this group.
3) What Should Be the Targeted Growth for Students Above the Pass+ Line?
Students above the Pass+ line have achieved very well and should be expected to stay in Pass+. It would be unfair, however, to penalize a student and a school if a student scores 10 points above the pass+ line in Year 1 but only 9 points above the pass+ line in Year 2. Growth to stay in Pass+ should be sufficient to define targeted growth for Pass+ students each year. Again, there is no need here for slopes or trajectories.

There it is, a proposal offered to advance the discussion of targeted growth. It is important for the State Board to speed the final development of the new rules to replace the current discredited system, which sadly is still being used to grade schools. Public release of new letter grades is now scheduled for mid to late December.

Quick Action Would Help

A speedy rollout of the proposed new system would promote a correction of the biggest flaw I see in the panel’s report. They have called for use of this new system for 2014-15 student data, giving us yet another year of the flawed current system for 2013-14 data.

That delay is not appropriate. The General Assembly asked for a new system effective November 15, 2013, not two years from now. Testing of the panel’s new system, if finalized soon, could clearly be checked and rechecked using the 2012-13 data that is just now available. Testing out the new metrics now for a full year using current data should get all the kinks out to use it next fall for 2013-14.

The State Board will address these and other matters in an extra meeting on Nov. 13th at 8:00am.

Public Comments

Indiana must move on from the flawed current A-F system to end the damage it is doing. I addressed the problems of the current system in public comments to the State Board at the Nov. 8th meeting. I have attached these comments for those interested describing the shortcomings of the A-F system we are still suffering under.

I hope you will send comments you have about the A-F system to the Panel members and to State Board members. Thanks for your support and actions on behalf of public education!

Best wishes,

Vic Smith

ICPE is working to promote public education and oppose the privatization of schools in the Statehouse. We thank all who came to the three membership meeting this fall in Indianapolis, Lafayette and Bloomington. They were all excellent discussions! Many renewed their memberships at the meetings. If you have not done so since July 1, the start of our new membership year, we urge you to renew by going to our website.

We need additional support to carry on our advocacy for public education. We need additional members and additional donations. We need your help!

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

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

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

Wednesday, November 6, 2013

Action: November 6, 2013

TEACHERS, here is an action that you can do. Invite your state senator or representative (or any of the people who make education policy) to spend the whole day with you (not a photo op) at school. In the subject line of your email invitation, write "scheduling request," and you will, more than likely, get a response. If you show them what is really happening, they might be able to better understand how teachers teach and how students learn.

Monday, November 4, 2013

November 4, 2013: Question of the Day

Many of you are already informed about education reform. How do we get more parents and more teachers informed and engaged?

Please give us your suggestions about how to get parents and teachers to push back against what our policy makers are doing to public education.

~~~

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


~~~

Sunday, November 3, 2013

Vic’s Statehouse Notes #158 – November 2, 2013

Dear Friends,

Gov. Pence’s State Board of Education proposed a seriously flawed plan to speed up the A-F school letter grades “in time for the Board’s official approval this November,” in the words of their October 16th letter to Speaker Bosma and President Pro Tempore Long.

The flaws are two-fold:
  • Approval in their November meeting would have meant public announcement of school grades that did not include the rescored tests that CTB/McGraw Hill is still processing. Rescored tests have been promised by November 5th. The General Assembly gave parents the right to request rescores of tests, and now the State Board wants to approve grades before the rescored tests are available to be included in the calculations.
  • Approval in their November meeting would have meant public announcement of schools grades without first allowing the appeals process that schools have after receiving their preliminary letter grades. Checking the data at the local level is an important part of achieving accuracy in a complex set of calculations.
It’s hard to fathom why the educators on the State Board thought it was a good plan to make school letter grades public without the rescored test data and before the appeals process.

It’s hard to fathom why the Speaker and the Senate President approved their plan in less than 24 hours.

It’s hard to fathom why Governor Pence sent his State Board on this aggressive move to challenge the authority of Superintendent Ritz based on this flawed plan.

Superintendent Ritz should be thanked for slowing the State Board members down so that schools do not have to deal with premature letter grades. Here are the details:

The Price of Inaccurate Early Public Announcements

The reputation and even the survival of schools are at stake in this A-F system, and therefore schools take school letter grades very seriously. They don’t want any public announcement until the student data and the calculations have been scrubbed for accuracy.

Apparently the Governor and members of the State Board are more casual about this matter. Their plan would put grades out based on incomplete data and appeals, and then make corrections later as needed.

The October 19th Indianapolis Star quoted State Board member Andrea Neal as follows: “She said she wasn’t aware of any information for which the department is waiting and even if a few scores are changed, calculations can be changed later. ‘To me, that sounds like an excuse to delay the release of the scores,’ she said.”

What would happen if the scores for schools are announced quickly but inaccurately? Would it make any difference? Could we change calculations later? There are two possibilities for calculation changes:
Possibility #1: Schools might be given a low grade in the early public announcement and a higher grade when all data are in. Schools would be damaged in this case because the first announcement gets the most public attention. Schools know that press coverage of corrections would be minimal or non-existent and that the first poor impression would linger in the mind of the public. Impressions in the mind of the public are absolutely vital in the competitive voucher marketplace we now have in Indiana. Also, since teacher compensation formulas now include school letter grades as a factor, an incorrect low grade would give affected teachers lower payments than earned which would have to be corrected with additional payments.

Possibility #2: Schools might be given a high grade in the first public announcement and a lower grade later. Schools would be damaged in this case as well. They would have to explain to their parents and the local community why the grade went down, a story no school likes to tell. Regarding teacher compensation formulas, payments issued based on incorrect high grades would have to be corrected by asking teachers to repay a portion of the money already in their hands, an awkward situation that nobody would like to see.
Either way, schools are damaged. Both possibilities are unacceptable to schools.

There is no question that school letter grades must be based on accurate data that has been checked and verified. Time must be taken to get it right.

The Power of Governor Pence

The Governor and his State Board members have jumped the gun to ask for quick help from the LSA. After reflecting on this matter, it is hard to believe they were thinking clearly in asking to speed up the announcement of letter grades.

The Governor apparently believes that he should determine education policy through his appointed State Board members, rather than Superintendent Ritz. He apparently believes that he has better policies than she does. This aggressive gambit to take student data out of Superintendent Ritz’s hands and approve the letter grades in November is not a better policy. It does not build confidence in his leadership. If he has more power than Superintendent Ritz, one would hope he would use that power more wisely.

In this episode to seize the student data, he and his State Board have failed the test of wisdom.

Superintendent Ritz filed suit based on the Open Door statute to slow down this State Board action. Ironically, the hearing on her suit will be held in Marion County Circuit Court on Tuesday, November 5th at 1:30pm, the same day CTB/McGraw Hill has promised to return the rescores to IDOE so that final calculations of school letter grades can be made.

Public school advocates need to continue to contact Gov. Pence, State Board members and members of the legislature to keep student test data from becoming a political football. Some pundits have tried to blame Superintendent Ritz for this controversy and to make her look incompetent when in reality her lawsuit has restored order and accuracy to the timeline for issuing the A-F letter grades. Her actions have protected schools from a chaotic game of “Who has the A-F data and whose letter grades are the real letter grades?”

Governor Pence’s State Board of Education has immersed Indiana in a needless controversy over a flawed plan to speed up letter grades. Let’s hope that if Governor Pence wants to exert his power in the education arena, he will do so for policies that make sense and will not do damage to schools as this plan would.

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

Best wishes,

Vic Smith

ICPE is working to promote public education and oppose the privatization of schools in the Statehouse. We thank all who came to the three membership meeting this fall in Indianapolis, Lafayette and Bloomington. They were all excellent discussions! Many renewed their memberships at the meetings. If you have not done so since July 1, the start of our new membership year, we urge you to renew by going to our website.

We need additional support to carry on our advocacy for public education. We need additional members and additional donations. We need your help!

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

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

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