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.)

Corruption in Indiana Education "reform"

Let's not even talk for now about the foolishness of sending money to Teach for America (see Newteacher for new research)....this is just plain ol' nepotism and political corruption.  Here's to hoping the voters wake up.

Indiana's super connections


By Karen Francisco
The Journal Gazette

Plenty of education observers have pointed out State Superintendent Tony Bennett's enthusiastic and unquestioning support for charter schools and his wife's job as a school improvement consultant for the Indiana Public Charter Schools Association. Tina Bennett, a former school principal in Clark County, landed the job after her husband was elected to the state's top school post.

But there's now another interesting connection between the Indiana Department of Education and the superintendent's wife. Tina Bennett supervises the Teach for America program at Marian University, which just landed a $500,000 contract from the DOE to run a program to train principals for turnaround schools.  A DOE spokeswoman told the Indianapolis Star that Tina Bennett had no involvement in developing the program at the university, which has an enrollment of about 1,800 full- and part-time students.

Last month, the DOE announced the award of $15.5 million in School Improvement Grants to four of the state's lowest-achieving schools. Two of the four were charter schools and members of the Indiana Public Charter Schools Association.

Indiana's lax conflict of interest laws require only that state officials declare the name (or names, in this case) of a spouse's employer, which Tony Bennett dutifully did on his 2009 financial disclosure statement. Voters, however, should note that -- within a three-week period -- the Department of Education has awarded $3.85 million in grants and contracts to entities with close ties to the superintendent's wife.

The Students End Up Losing

The good people at NUVO usually do a better job than this in their reporting (note that they only talked to politicians and union folks--how about some outside perspectives?).  Unfortunately, we need to clarify here: new standards mean new tests, which in this administration means outsourcing more public money out to private test companies.  BTW, there's no research at all that this move will improve achievement so, really, this is more smoke and mirrors, wasted effort that doesn't really help kids and teachers.  Another odd thing here is for Republicans to give up local control in education....hmm, it makes one wonder what's really going here in the Daniels strategy session.

Resetting the bar for state education

In the days preceding Indiana's adoption of new national education guidelines, Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Bennett's efforts at persuasion were met with what has come to typify teacher response to almost anything coming from the state: skepticism.

"It's very important to understand that this is a state-driven initiative," Bennett argued in an attempt to reassure a crowd assembled in Indianapolis earlier this month – part of the superintendent's recent statewide tour to meet with Indiana educators. "We have been on the ground floor in discussing these issues."

The new national guidelines, known as Common Core Standards, will eventually replace Indiana's current set of state mandates for gauging how and what students are taught. Earlier this month, Indiana became one of at least 33 states to have adopted the measure so far.

Bennett, like other local and federal officials, took pains to emphasize states' roles in crafting those standards at this month's meeting. But a cascade of guffaws and muffled laughs seemed to indicate not every teacher present was convinced the effort was locally-grown.

"That is the consensus from teachers around the state — that this was not really some local, home-grown decision," explained Teresa Meredith, vice president of the Indiana State Teachers Association (ISTA), a teachers union, and a teacher in Shelbyville. "But, hopefully, by working between Dr. Bennett and the ISTA, we can change that."

That the state is moving forward on Common Core at all is a change of pace given recent impasses between state and union leaders.

In April, Indiana educators failed to put together a bid for millions in cash from the federal government's Race to the Top program, aimed at spreading $4.35 billion among states that best exemplify the kinds of reform the government is looking for. The Common Core Standards were meant to be a part of that drive, and Indiana stood to gain up to $250 million in federal education subsidies for a winning bid.

But territorial issues between the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) and ISTA proved contentious. Disputes between the two groups torpedoed the bid at a time when the state has cut $297 million from schools for the current two-year budget – cuts that could get deeper if the latest state revenue numbers are any indication.

Such disputes have some wondering if state officials and educators will ever learn to get along – and how many more opportunities will fall by the wayside in the meantime.

Julie Havill-Weems, training director for the Indiana Parent and Information Resource Center (PIRC), a parents advocacy group, said it was "frustrating," when students missed out because state and union officials couldn't agree.  "When you aren't able to forge those strong partnerships that focus on student outcomes, with the loss of that prize, what we're really looking at is an example of the potential fallout that directly impacts our students," she said. "The students end up losing."

'A step in the right direction'

When President Barack Obama launched Race to the Top in 2009, his administration was careful distinguish it from the No Child Left Behind program put in place by his predecessor. Race to the Top, he explained, would focus instead on measuring growth and standardizing teaching, rather than on testing data.  Indiana got in line with 47 other states, each of which had to outline a plan for revamping its education program. The "Standards and Assessment" portion of the application was a major component for putting together a winning bid. It influenced Indiana's initial plan to adopt Common Core Standards as part of a reform package the state calls its Fast Forward plan.

Common Core was intended to better align Indiana's standards of instruction with those of schools across the nation. "We want to ensure our students are held to the highest academic standard," IDOE said in a statement at the time. "And we believe that the Common Core State Standards will position Indiana children well — nationally and internationally."

Indiana submitted its bid for round one of the program, but the initiative didn't get far. On March 15th, Bennett announced that Indiana was not selected as one of the 15 finalists.  IDOE soon began planning a second application, but announced April 22 that re-application would be virtually useless. Negotiations to curry support with the ISTA hadn't gained the necessary traction, and support from teacher unions was estimated at just 60 percent.

Today, although the state is no longer in the running for millions of federal dollars, Bennett says Common Core Standards are still worth implementing. He said federal money was never the primary draw: For example, that money could not have been used to fill the hole left by budget cuts, as some have suggested, only for costs associated with reform. It is unclear how those costs will be covered now.

"We think the reforms are essential and Indiana will be a national leader on implementing reforms without national money," Bennett said.

The new standards will stress depth-over-breadth-of-teaching more than the previous ones. It will also make teachers' specializations narrower, Meredith explained. Only time will tell if that's ultimately a good thing.

The standards and goals are spelled out very specifically. For example, an eighth grader would need to be able to "consult general and specialized reference materials, both print and digital, to find the pronunciation of a word or to determine or clarify its precise meaning or part of speech." It's left to local administrators to determine how best to keep teachers and students in line with the standards.

"We don't really have any big concerns yet," Meredith said. "Probably more of a question than anything. There isn't any data yet that suggests that the Common Core Standards change learning in the classroom or are impacting students' lives outside. But with anything new, the data comes in a few years down the line."

State Rep. Gregory Porter, chairman of the House Education Committee, said the standards were "a step in the right direction," but said he had reservations. "Obviously since we've adopted this thing it's going to require some dollars behind it," he said.

As to changes in the quality of education, Porter said he was "eyeing it cautiously" for now. "My concern with this is when comparing all the students of different states, we're not all going to start at the same level."

Cautiously optimistic

Much of Indiana's failure to submit a viable bid for federal dollars can be attributed to tensions between IDOE and ISTA leadership, the latter of which withheld much of its support. Tennessee and Delaware – which, as Race to the Top winners received a combined $600 million for their education programs — had secured between 95-100 percent support from local teachers' unions.

The ISTA claims the only way to get its full support is to follow the lead of Tennessee and Delaware by better including unions in the process.  "The big problem we had with [the proposal] was that we were never invited to be a part of the conversation unless we would blindly agree to Fast Forward," said Meredith. "It's hard to agree to something if you can't even see it."

Porter took similar issue with what he characterized as unilateral action on the part of the IDOE .

"The main thing I'm concerned about is that this whole movement did not really involve the legislature," porter said. "Not once, not twice, but on numerous occasions I reached out to the Department of Education. We never really got any pertinent information."

As different subjects currently utilize standards implemented during different years, adoption of the new standards will take place gradually through 2013, as old standards are phased out. Regarding the future, ISTA insists its attitude is cautiously optimistic. Meredith said she anticipated a difficult 2011-2012 school year.

"I think teachers are confused," she said. "And the next year is going to be a challenging year for having two sets of standards and figuring out what to teach."

Indiana's Resources and Questionable Programs

We certainly do need good ideas and good people to work on Indiana schools but the question here is a good one.   Why is IDOE partnering with private colleges (or now the Governor's outsourcing to Utah) when we have a fine higher education system to work with?  Will this be another high-speed, low-experience program that puts people in systems they don't understand?  Almost certainly, oh....and, Bennett's wife happens to have a new job at this particular private college.  Just sayin'

Do we really need a new program?

Posted by Susan Blackwell

The Indiana Department of Education announced recently that a small, local university was awarded half a million dollars to develop a principal leadership academy focused on using data and research to improve school performance. There is no doubt that effective leadership is fundamental to a school change process. And, if I were to survey the leadership programs already in existence in Indiana, I would learn that they already address the "innovative " elements cited in the Indianapolis Star story. So, then, I have to wonder: Why is the IDOE is giving money to start one program when multiple programs with the same focus already exist in abundance?

Current programs already teach the elements of leadership. These include best practices in teaching and teacher evaluation, data decision-making, conflict resolution, change processes, and supervision of employees. These are the basics of accredited programs.

Given the additional cuts in funding to schools, it is unclear how the IDOE can justify the promotion of one program (with the funding that accompanies it) that duplicates efforts already in existence at universities across the state. It is also unclear how this program is anchored in the research on effective leadership preparation. Finally, while school districts are cutting faculty and closing schools, parents and others should be asking about the use of state resources at this critical time.

Misunderstanding Advanced Placement

In another ill-thought and under-researched move the IDOE is pushing for higher numbers in AP classes.  A little history might be helpful here: AP classes were designed for the top 2 percent of students, those capable of taking a college-level class.  With the push for more classes and higher enrollment, the state (and others as well) are pushing folks to water down the curriculum and its showing in passing rates (i.e. they're going down). All of these pushes for AP, early college, and dual credit actually have absymal performance rates and show the pathology of looking for easy fixes and cheap answers.  Ultimately it hurts kids....what's wrong with a high school kid doing high school work??


AP quota spells trouble for ill-prepared students


Posted: July 1, 2010
I have read with interest opinions about Advanced Placement classes in Indiana high schools, . As an experienced AP teacher in Indianapolis Public Schools, I can offer insight into this discussion, which is based on Indiana Department of Education's assertion that one-quarter of all high school students should pass at least one AP exam. Unfortunately, that is forcing schools to water down the curriculums to accommodate the lowest functioning children, and the result is ever-lower passing rates on the national exams.


I had one student enrolled in my AP class who could barely read and write. When I told the principal that he needed to be removed, she dismissed my suggestion, claiming he was just being lazy. He failed the class, which doubled as his senior English class, postponing his graduation. Unfortunately, this young man was not the only one in that predicament. To appease their higher-ups, administrators and superintendents are pushing more and more unprepared students into these college-level courses and then are surprised when they fail the exam or even the course.

For students to be successful in AP courses, they must begin preparation in middle, or even elementary, school. That is where bright children should be encouraged to enroll in accelerated or honors classes. Sticking low-performing or unmotivated students into AP classes to fulfill someone's quota is a travesty.


An Indiana AP Teacher

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.