A Teacher Speaks Back to Daniels & Bennett

An Indiana AP teacher speaks back to the reckless spin of the Daniels/Bennett machine.  And look!  She actually brings data to a question about education!  Daniels lack of understanding or even concern for public education never ceases to amaze (and how Bennett can sleep at night is beyond us).  AP isn't the answer and it wasn't designed to be.  Historically, AP classes where for those top 2% students that might be ready to take college level classes.  For Daniels (and apparently Bennett) all education is for is a piece of paper that leads to a job--if that's true then rush these kids through, put them in classes that they're not ready for, and make it look good for the paper.

Cheers to this brave and thoughtful teacher!  We need more to speak out!!

AP classes don't always equal upward mobility

Lynette Enz Liberge

Posted: June 13, 2010

In a recent ceremony honoring 12 Indiana high schools for having at least 25 percent of their students pass an Advanced Placement exam, Gov. Mitch Daniels praised the schools for "preserving the opportunity for upward mobility in our state and our society." That seems an odd choice of words, given the socioeconomic data of those schools.

According to the Indiana Youth Institute, the percentage of Hoosier students receiving free and reduced lunch was 42 percent in 2009. By contrast, the school corporations of the 12 high schools in question averaged only 16 percent. In fact, seven of the 12 schools are in districts with the six lowest percentages in the state.

Similarly, the website STATS Indiana reports that in 2000 only 19 percent of our state's adults had a bachelor's degree or higher. In the same year, 58 percent of adults in Carmel had four-year degrees, as did 60 percent of adults in Zionsville and Fishers and 70 percent in West Lafayette.

The fact that these 12 high schools have such a high percentage of advanced students is laudable. It is not, however, a sign of upward mobility. At best, it shows maintenance of the status quo. It might even be argued that Martinsville High School's 9 percent AP pass rate in a district with fewer than 12 percent of adults with four-year degrees actually shows more promise of upward mobility than does Carmel's 31 percent pass rate in its more highly educated township.

I do not mean to diminish the great things going on in those 12 schools. Daniels was right to praise the schools, teachers, principals and superintendents. However, his admonition for other educators to "take notice" is not only insulting, but may ultimately be detrimental to the very students he wishes to help.

The Indiana Department of Education has a goal of doubling the number of students passing AP exams in the next two years. It wants all schools to meet the 25 percent benchmark. This is unreasonable. The governor can't simply will a mediocre student to be prepared for an AP-level class from one year to the next. The skills, knowledge, work ethic and mind-set of an advanced student develop throughout the student's life, both at home and at school.

In many school districts, a majority of parents do not value education, rarely read to their children and never help them with their homework. Just as the high expectations displayed in Zionsville and West Lafayette are passed from generation to generation, these negative patterns are also entrenched in families and in certain areas. Short of some sudden and vast societal change, these districts will not have a 25 percent AP pass rate in 20 years, much less two.

In order to meet state expectations, school administrators and counselors are likely to push students to take classes for which they are not qualified. In order not to lose those students, the teacher will be forced to move at a slower pace or water down the course, hurting those students who were prepared for the class in the first place.

(If the quality of the curriculum falls low enough, the College Board could even pull the school's right to call it an AP course, thus depriving all students of the opportunity to take it.)

Through this unrealistic goal, the state is already cheapening Indiana's AP program in word; its implementation could cheapen the program in substance.

I only wish that educators had the power that Daniels and the DOE seem to believe we do: that with a little more work, a little more training, a little more researchinto the best methods and a little more accountability, teachers can turn things around for all students. Unfortunately, despite the best efforts of many dedicated people throughout the state, the path to true upward mobility seems to be a little more difficult to find than that.

Indiana DOE Hostile to Teachers

The word is out.... Tony Bennett hates teachers.  Another embarrassment for Indiana and its reputation in education.  "Hostile" is too nice a word for what has been a administration rife with thoughtless policy changes, aversion to research and data, and a tendency for shady processes.  Bennett keeps trying to call himself a "reformer"....hopefully Hoosiers are smarter than to fall for that.

Teachers union chief chides state Education Department

One of the nation's most prominent teachers union officials has called out Indiana's Department of Education as one of three in the country most hostile to teachers.

American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten cited Indiana, Virginia and Minnesota as especially egregious in failing to include teachers in their applications for the federal Race to the Top competition for $4.4 billion in money for education reform. "State officials in Minnesota and Indiana failed to include teachers in the application process -- and then scapegoated teachers to deflect attention from the decision not to file applications," Weingarten said in a statement released nationally Tuesday.

"What is especially troubling about the states that failed to work with teachers unions is that, as teachers well know, the common denominator for all good schools is an environment where the adults work together on behalf of the students."

Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Bennett has tangled with the Indiana Federation of Teachers and the Indiana State Teachers Association, blasting them as being out to protect adults at the cost of educating children.

The federal grant process required dramatic changes, including a willingness to tie teacher job reviews to student performance. But Indiana pushed harder than many other states, and teachers unions were not allowed to see the proposals until after they were filed.

Indiana did not apply for a second round of funding, citing the teachers unions' lack of support.  Bennett said the positions of the IFT leadership have been at odds with some of the positions of its own locals and with the public statements Weingarten has made at the national level. He said he was surprised at her comments Tuesday.

"That statement is unfounded on her part," he said. "It's obvious that the leadership of the state unions doesn't reflect Ms. Weingarten's openness to reform."

Challenging Bennett's Argument

Oh, my goodness--a letter to the editor at the IndyStar that points to the obvious scapegoating going on from Tony Bennett and Mitch Daniels.  This blog is in no way meant to be an apologist for the unions (there are clearly problems there) but the union leadership has started to stand up to the mistruths and procedural wrangling of this administration.  After all, if a union won't stand up for it's members, then what's if for?  The other thing this points out of course is how through one side of the mouth folks will talk about the need for "data", they'll also, through the other side, advance policies that have no support in data or educational research.  Once again, what's most exciting is that the people are waking up to the hypocrisy and speaking out.

June 3, 2010

What negative impact?

Posted by Duane S. Nickell

In his recent "My View" piece, Dr. Tony Bennett talks of "the negative impact teacher unions can have on classroom instruction . . ." Extending Dr. Bennett's logic, one would expect that a negative correlation should exist between teacher unionism and student academic achievement. In other words, a higher level of teacher unionism should result in lower academic achievement. But when one looks at the countries that perform well on international tests, some (Finland, for example) are highly unionized while others (some of the Asian countries) are not.

In the U.S., the region of the country that performs worst on achievement tests is the South, where teacher unions have historically been the weakest. Massachusetts, where teacher unions are strong, always ranks near the top academically. I challenge Dr. Bennett to cite any educational research that clearly demonstrates a negative correlation between teacher unions and student achievement.

Falling for the "Tough Love" Spin

It's been noted here before that the Indy Star's Matthew Tully needs to be commended for bringing public education into the spotlight (although somewhat problematically) but here he shows some ignorance.  Bennett clearly sees where his bread is buttered and he's laying it on thick for Tully.  Some questions might be: what does one make of policies that "don't make sense"?; what do we make of cutting professional development support, time, and opportunities that make teachers better? how do you possibly defend education policy decisions with literally NO data behind them?  how do you defend a process that cuts out public comment, parental views, and due process?  how does responsible journalism allow politicians to spin failures as victories?

But perhaps most important, at what point is tough love not love anymore?  Indiana Citizens likes what you do Tully but.... you're falling for it again.

Tony Bennett's tough love

I've heard many complaints about state Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Bennett during months of conversations with teachers and school administrators. In fact, the easiest way to guarantee an eye roll from a public school educator is to simply mention Bennett's name.

He hates teachers, some insist. He's arrogant and too blunt, others argue. He's the governor's puppet, many believe. Or, critics say, his reform plans just don't make sense.

As much as I like teachers as a group, and as much as I respect the difficult challenges they face, I could hardly disagree more.

Bennett's tenure hasn't always been pretty. But he's done exactly what Indiana needed him to do during his first 17 months in office: He has put the debate over improving public schools at center stage. He's stood up to the entrenched education establishment. And he's made clear that neither baby steps nor the status quo is acceptable.

Still, there is a valid concern that Bennett's increasingly bitter battles with teachers unions, as well as his criticism of bad teachers, has left many good teachers feeling like collateral damage.

"That's a very fair observation," Bennett said Thursday morning during a meeting with editors and reporters from The Indianapolis Star. "Frankly, at times good teachers get lumped in with bad teachers, and that is unfortunate. Do I regret the dynamic that has occurred? Yes. Do I wish we had done a better job of messaging the sincere appreciation we have for great teachers? Yes. And I take full responsibility for that."

That's a good thing to say. There aren't many people who deserve more appreciation than those who do a good job of teaching children.

Still, Bennett's best trait is his willingness -- eagerness, even -- to take the punches that come with fighting the education bosses throughout the state. It's a trait some of his supporters argue clouds his message. Although they might be right, there's much to be said in praise of an education leader who lives in constant frustration with the state's current education climate.  "I will have no remorse for calling out the things that do not serve Indiana's children," he said.

As for his hard-charging early days, he's not apologizing, saying, "We had to drive home the fact that we were going to push for excellence." Union leaders have kicked back fiercely at Bennett. Those who apologize for the poor performance of districts such as Indianapolis Public Schools suggest that leaders who push for big changes cannot by definition be supporters of public education. The forces that attempt to protect the status quo in public schools are as powerful as anywhere else.

That's why I've appreciated Bennett's willingness to expose the harm caused by some union contract rules, and to say things state education superintendents before him refused to say.

Without question, he needs to reach out to rank-and-file teachers. But remember, his aggressive style has raised the profile of the education debate in Indiana, and led more people to take seriously talk that the state might finally force dramatic changes.

"If schools are not performing," Bennett said, "the state has a moral imperative to intervene. The state has to have the political courage to step in and help these kids."

I just spent nearly a year closely observing a public school, and I still find it hard to believe this country allows so many of its children to attend schools that do not offer an education even remotely comparable to better schools only miles away.

Bennett has occasionally stumbled. And, no doubt, he has angered many in the education business.

Good.

Let's hope he keeps it up.