Monday, August 18, 2014

Comments and Questions From NEIFPE Showing of Rise Above the Mark

On Sunday, August 17, the Fort Wayne Cinema Center, in collaboration with NEIFPE, presented the film, Rise Above the Mark.

From the Rise Above the Mark website...
Rise Above the Mark is a documentary narrated by Peter Coyote that brings to light the heartbreaking realities of public education. It’s the story of what happens when politics enters the classroom.

Public schools are boxed in by current corporate reforms. Rules and regulations restrict vision, depreciate funding, demoralize teachers, and turn students into test-taking machines, robbing them of time to foster creativity.

Rise Above the Mark focuses on Indiana’s struggles with public school reforms—the same types of struggles experienced in schools throughout the United States.

Experts Diane Ravtich, Linda Darling-Hammond, Pasi Sahlberg and others discuss how America can make positive changes to provide an exceptional public school system for all children.
A panel discussion with Northwest Allen County Schools Superintendent Chris Himsel, Karen Francisco of the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette and Whitley County Consolidated Schools Business Manager Kirk Doehrmann followed the showing in the Theater.

The following comments and questions were provided by the Cinema Center audience after the film. Some comments and questions were difficult to read. Please forgive any errors. They are in no particular order. NEIFPE answers follow the questions and are highlighted.

###
1. I was wondering if this show will be televised throughout the state? I would also like to hear the panel's reaction to Mitch Daniel's remarks on satellite schools this week.

2. How did the position of the Teachers Unions allow this change to occur? Now, how can the unions reorganize to create influence to move the pendulum back the other direction?

3. 1) Embrace the ISTA Amendment. 2) The Business Plan of Shadow Government. 3) Please talk about poverty and education.

4. Karen, you are a spokesperson for pre-school education. What would you suggest IN should do to move this along? Are vouchers the "way to go?"

5. (COMMENT, RHETORICAL QUESTION) Feels so good to be validated as a public school teacher and to have such a cohesive, fervent, research-driven piece created and presented. I am so thankful to have retired from teaching in Ohio before they started using test scores as a teacher evaluation tool instead of a student diagnostic tool. When teachers are so much about creating a positive atmosphere for students, how can legislators require administrators to treat teachers in such negative ways, creating such a demoralizing environment? My such excellent teacher friends are beside themselves with stress.

6. How do we get state legislators to watch this movie and to engage in these issues?

7. In an age of accountability, how can we show that local control can work?

8. Why test at all? How should school effectiveness be measured?

9. Getting government/politics out of education: How to do it soon? How to "fight" the monied interests? How to change the conversation with the current crop of politicians?

10. Can you identify legislators who are in support of public schools?

NEIFPE sent out a questionnaire to all the candidates running for office. We'll be posting the results of the survey on this blog and on our Facebook page over the next several weeks.

11. How do you think the situation in Ferguson, MO impacts our thinking about the role and necessity of public schools?

12. Get the schools back the right way schools should be.

13. So true is the statement that those who are making all the decisions in education know nothing about teaching. Also, I agree that the legislators in Indianapolis care only about money -- not the students, not public education. Karen Francisco does a great job covering education issues. Keep up the good work.

14. I went to school in NY back in the 70s. I think the point is that teachers allowed to teach and were were allowed to use our minds. In the 50s we as a country got off our butts due to sputnik and cared to kick our education system up.

15. Is there a comparable group of activists in S. IN and other parts of the state?

The Monroe County Coalition for Public Education is in Bloomington.
The Indiana Coalition for Public Education is in Indianapolis.
Other groups in Indiana can be found HERE.
###

Sunday, August 17, 2014

Candidate Questionnaire 1: Tax Dollars for Private Schools

In July, The Northeast Indiana Friends of Public Education (NEIFPE) contacted all 21 of the candidates running for federal and state offices in NE Indiana to ask them for their views pertaining to education issues. Each was sent a survey of 10 questions. So far 6 have returned the surveys. If and when others respond, those will also be posted. The comments below are unedited and are the words and thoughts of the candidates. NEIFPE shares this information so voters will be able to make informed choices at the polls on November 4.

(NOTE: A copy of the original (blank) questionnaire may be found HERE.)

Question: Do you believe tax dollars should support private and parochial education?


(Note: Candidates are listed by district, and by alphabetical order within districts)

Candidates for State Representative

Charles Odier, D-52: "No, if a company wants to start a business it should pay it's own way, the charter schools failed, but were forgiven their debt. I believe in separation of church and state, I don't think we should pay to teach one kind or another of religion."

Phil GiaQuinta, D-80: "No."

Mike Wilber, D-82: "Absolutely not. Tax dollars should support public schools."

Fred Haigh, D-84: "Absolutely not! I believe the first ten words added to the constitution (the first sentence of the first amendment) outline a wall of separation between church and state. Tax proceeds should not be used to support the parochial, ideological, or dogmatic views of a minority or, for that matter, a majority of the public."

Candidates for State Senate

Jack Morris, D-15: "No."

Candidates for U. S. Representative

Justin Kuhnle, D-3: "Tax dollars that are designed and designated for use by public education should be provided to public education. I believe if a child was chosen to attend a private or parochial school, the parent(s) or guardian(s) should provide for the cost of that education."

###

The following candidates did not provide a response the the questions.

Candidates for State Representative
Dan Leonard, R-50
Dennis Zent, R-51
Benjamin Smaltz, R-52
Matt Lehman, R-79
Martin Carbaugh, R-81
Thad Gerardot, D-81
David Ober, R-82
Christopher Judy, R-83
Bob Morris, R-84
Casey Cox, R-85

Candidates for State Senate
Dennis Kruse, R-14
Liz Brown, R-15
Jim Banks, R-17
Travis Holdman, R-19

Candidates for U.S. Representative
Marlin Stutzman, R-3

Complete Responses

Click the candidate's name below to see their entire questionnaire, including a statement of their vision for the future of education in Indiana. NOTE: Only those candidates who returned a questionnaire are listed.

INDIANA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

INDIANA SENATE

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
  • Justin Kuhnle, candidate for U.S. Representative Indiana District 3

###

Wednesday, August 6, 2014

Vic’s Statehouse Notes #181 – August 5, 2014

Dear Friends,

During the 2013 budget session of the Indiana General Assembly, Joel Hand testified repeatedly on behalf of the Indiana Coalition for Public Education that the voucher expansion bill would add a major new fiscal cost to the state. The era when vouchers would save the state money would be over.

I and others gave similar testimony, but the General Assembly passed the huge voucher expansion bill anyway.

Now the data for 2013-14 are in and the Indiana Department of Education has reported that the voucher program cost the state $15.7 million dollars to pay for private school tuition. The savings of $4.9 million in the previous 2012-13 school year was transformed into a significant outright cost of $15.7 by Governor Pence’s voucher expansion bill.

Indiana is now spending more of your tax dollars to pay for private school tuition for students who have always been in private schools than programs for gifted and talented students ($12.8 million), for preschool ($10 million), for Non-English speaking students ($5.5 million) and for teacher professional development ($0).

How Did This Happen? Paying for Students Where the Choice was Already Made


In large part, the voucher bill was sold to legislators in 2011 on the argument that it would save the state money. Vouchers were set at a fixed amount for elementary students ($4500 in 2011-12 and then upped to $4700 in 2013-14), a level below the average state tuition support in most but not all public school districts. For secondary students the voucher was set at 90% of what the student’s public school was getting for that student.

Most importantly, vouchers were given only to students who had attended public schools in the previous two semesters. It was a formula to guarantee the state would save money when students transferred from public schools to private schools, a formula that worked for two years, saving $4.2 million and $4.9 million in the first two years of the program, according to the financial officials writing the IDOE report.

The projected savings even became a talking point in the historic 2011 debate on the original voucher bill. Rural legislators who did not expect that their schools would be impacted by vouchers were told that their schools would make money on the voucher bill because the savings would be distributed to all schools based on the school funding formula rather than going back to only the schools where the students had transferred out. Based on that belief, some legislators went along with the voucher bill to help their small districts back home.

A bill in the 2012 short session would have opened up the voucher system to high school students who had never been to public schools by allowing them a tax credit scholarship without first attending a public school, but the bill failed due to strong opposition by public school advocates and ICPE.

Then came the 2013 voucher expansion bill. Representative Behning, the bill’s sponsor, with the strong support of Governor Pence, Speaker Bosma and Senate President Pro Tem Long, went all out to dismantle the concept that students needed to go to public school first to qualify for vouchers. Governor Daniels had endorsed a “try public school first” philosophy and had even trumpeted that philosophy in a speech at Harvard as the right way to go. The Daniels philosophy was quickly thrown under the bus by Gov. Pence and Rep. Behning in HB 1003 in 2013.

Representative Behning’s original bill would allow kindergarteners with no public school experience to get vouchers. Senator Kenley contested that approach, questioning the fiscal cost. In a memorable debate in the Senate Education Committee, Representative Behning told Senator Kenley that he really wants universal vouchers, endorsing the concept that all private school students could get vouchers, despite the $500 million cost to taxpayers that Senator Kenley had projected.

It was clear in that debate that vouchers as a money-saver for the state was just a ploy to get a foot in the door. Vouchers for all private school students was the real goal. Taxpayers would eventually be asked to pay for all religious and private school tuition.

What were the Numbers for 2013-14?

The IDOE financial report has reported the number of vouchers and the costs for the first year after the voucher expansion bill was passed into law. In 2013-14, Indiana taxpayers paid for 19,809 vouchers to private schools, costing $81,066,786. Dividing these two figures shows that the average per voucher was $4092.

To understand how the savings has disappeared, it is best to break the voucher total into two groups. In Group 1, 12,030 vouchers went to students who transferred from public to private schools, the “choice” students the original bill was designed to help. In Group 2, 7,779 vouchers went to students who had always been in private schools and had never been in a public school. These “always been in private school” students were given vouchers based on four expanded pathways in the 2013 expansion law: (1) sibling vouchers, (2) vouchers for all special education students, (3) vouchers for students residing in the attendance area of an F school, and (4) expanded use of vouchers for students receiving a Scholarship Granting Organization scholarship for students who had never attended a public school.

Taking the 12,030 students in Group 1 who transferred from public to private school and multiplying by the $4092 average produces a total of $50 million for students of families who made a choice to leave the public school and transfer to a private school. This $50 million was diverted from public schools, so that meant $50 million less in resources available to the remaining public school students across the state. From the point of view of the state, however, this portion of the voucher program saved money, somewhere in the order of $15 million.

For the other 7,779 getting vouchers in Group 2, there was no money saving for the state. These students had never gone to a public school and had already chosen from the start of their schooling in Indiana to go to a private school. Thanks to the 2013 voucher expansion bill, they got vouchers anyway. Multiplying 7,779 students times the average voucher amount of $4092 produces a total of $31 million. This is all a new expense for the state.

Thus there are two groups of voucher students. One group of students chose to leave public schools for a less expensive private school, as the 2011 program envisioned. This group cost the state $50 million in 2013-14 and saved the state approximately $15 million compared to what the state would have paid if those students had remained in public schools.

The second group did not follow this path. It is comprised of students that have always been in private schools. This group cost the state $31 million, and totally wiped out the $15 million savings from group one, leaving a net fiscal cost to the state of roughly $16 million as reported by IDOE.

Thus endeth the voucher program as a money saver for the state of Indiana. Now we are hearing all the arguments from voucher proponents about why taxpayers should shell out even more for private and religious schools. Their goal again is to have the taxpayers of Indiana pay for all private and parochial school tuition.

From What Budget Does the New Fiscal Cost for Vouchers Come?

The General Assembly did not set up a line item for vouchers in the state budget. Given that, where will the $15.7 million come from to pay for the new voucher costs?

Voucher payments to private schools have always come out of the line item for public school tuition support. This fit with the theory that whatever the costs of vouchers for students transferring out of public schools, the costs would always be less than the costs for those students had they stayed in public schools. Now, this has all changed.

The General Assembly added $132 million to the tuition support budget for 2013-2014, an anemic 2% increase over the previous year. The $15.7 million for vouchers has to come from that amount. Subtracting out the bill for private school vouchers shows that the true increase for 2013-14 was about $115 million, turning the 2% increase into a 1.74% increase.

That 2% increase was already an historic low increase for public school funding. Except during the Great Recession budgets in 2009 and 2011, schools had not dipped below 2.4% in the last 20 years. A 2% increase has left many school districts in dire financial condition as they just try to maintain current programs. Now the extra money for private school vouchers will dig further into the money for public school programs.

This is exactly the scenario that Joel Hand painted for legislators as he lobbied on behalf of ICPE against voucher expansion in the 2013 session. At the last moment of the budget session in the final budget version, legislators acknowledged that the problem was real by adding a $25 million dollar emergency fund which the budget committee could vote to use to supplement the tuition support budget. In the words of Ways of Means Chairman Tim Brown as the final budget was presented for passage, this fund “would protect the foundational support.” Otherwise, public schools would have to give back a share of what they had already been promised to pay for the $15.7 million in new costs for vouchers.

I have not heard if the budget committee has made any plans to implement this $25 million “foundational protection” fund, but they will need to do so unless somehow they over budgeted for public school tuition support. We should all be watching for that move, which no doubt will be done quietly and close to the vest in order to avoid the questions this raises about the expensive 2013 voucher expansion.

As if this situation wasn’t bad enough for public school funding, the school budget for the second year of the biennium in 2014-15 lifted school funding by only 1%, well below the 1.6% cost of living cited in expert testimony during the 2013 budget process. This 1% increase meant an additional budgeted amount of $69 million for tuition support in 2014-15. If another $15 million is spent in 2014-15 on the voucher program, the new tuition support amount for public schools would drop to $54 million, making the true increase only 0.78%.

Fortunately, the $25 million “bailout fund” was set up for 2014-15 as well. It looks like it will be needed.

All this makes funding for the 1 million plus students in public schools look like an afterthought, and indeed it has become that. We should never lose track of the thought that lower resources for public school students translate to higher class sizes and lower funding for student programs, especially for extra programs addressing students who need extra help. Public schools serve the vast majority of students of poverty, and the historically low biennial budget of 2% and 1% has certainly hurt programs to help them.

Spinning

When these voucher figures were released in June, the voucher proponents went right to work to spin the message. Their protests led columnist Matthew Tully, a voucher supporter, to write “the state Department of Education released a report claiming, dubiously, that the state’s recently expanded voucher program cost Indiana $16 million last year.” (Indianapolis Star, June 25, 2014)

There is nothing dubious about the IDOE figures. The steps IDOE followed to determine the savings from the voucher program were written by the General Assembly.

The General Assembly, not the IDOE, set up the formula for determining savings in non-code provisions of the budget bill. The five steps prescribed in the budget are summarized as follows and can also be seen on page 21 of the IDOE report:

Step 1: determine the total amount distributed in the year for voucher scholarships.

Step 2: determine the total amount public schools including charter (but not virtual charter) schools would have received if those students who received voucher scholarships and who were enrolled in a public school during the preceding two semesters “had instead remained enrolled in public schools and had not enrolled in private schools.”

Step 3: subtract the first number from the second number.

Step 4: determine the percentage of the total state tuition support distributed to each school district and to each charter school (excluding virtual charter schools).

Step 5: multiply the amount of savings in Step 3 by the percentage in Step 4 to determine how much of the savings goes back to each district and charter school.

In the words of the report, “The five-step calculation resulted in no savings from the Choice Scholarship Program for the 2013-14 school year. Therefore, the Department will not make a savings distribution to school corporations and charter schools.”

It seems obvious that when 7779 vouchers (39%) were given out for students who had never attended a public school and for which the state had to pay the full amount without any savings factor, there would be no overall savings. The 2013 voucher expansion law clearly turned the voucher program from a money saver to new fiscal cost for the taxpayers of Indiana.

Let your legislators know you are very disappointed that they expanded vouchers in 2013 and created an expensive additional fiscal cost of nearly $16 million. That money could have been used for preschool or similar important education priorities other than paying for students to go to the private schools that they have always gone to.

Your messages on behalf of public education make a big difference. Thanks for participating! Please keep up your steadfast support of public schools!

Best wishes,

Vic Smith

“Vic’s Statehouse Notes” and ICPE received one of three Excellence in Media Awards presented by Delta Kappa Gamma Society International, an organization of over 85,000 women educators in seventeen countries. The award was presented on July 30, 2014 during the Delta Kappa Gamma International Convention held in Indianapolis. Thank you Delta Kappa Gamma!

ICPE has worked since 2011 to promote public education in the Statehouse and oppose the privatization of schools. The fall ICPE membership meeting in Indianapolis will be held on Saturday, September 6, 2014 at 2pm at the Washington Township Education Center on the corner of 86th and Woodfield Crossing. The video “Rise Above the Mark” will be featured at the meeting and Rocky Killion, the video’s producer, will be among the panelists to discuss the film afterward. Prior to the 2pm meeting, a reception will begin at 12:45 honoring Dr. Bob Dalton for his 63 years of enthusiastic service to public education. Come join us on Sept. 6th!

We need your membership to help pay the bills for ICPE lobbying efforts. Many have renewed their memberships already, and we thank you! 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 must raise additional funds for the 2015 session. We need additional members and additional donations. We need your help and the help of your colleagues who support public education! Please pass the word!

Go to www.icpe2011.com for membership and renewal information and for full information on ICPE efforts on behalf of public education. 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.
###

Monday, August 4, 2014

Rise Above the Mark in Fort Wayne

Northeast Indiana Friends of Public Education (NEIFPE)
and
Cinema Center of Fort Wayne
Present


Sunday, August 17, 2014, at 2 p.m.

Protect our local schools from destructive legislation!

This documentary focuses on the "corporate takeover" of Indiana public schools and offers strategies to parents, taxpayers, and educators on how to protect our community schools. This film is narrated by Peter Coyote and produced by Superintendent Dr. Rocky Killion and the West Lafayette Community Schools Corporation.

$8 General Admission
$6.50 Seniors and Students
$5 Cinema Center Members
$4 Student/Senior Members

NEIFPE will host a panel discussion after the film including
  • Chris Himsel - NACS Superintendent
  • Karen Francisco - Journal Gazette
  • Kirk Doehrmann - WCCS Business Manager

More information:

Rise Above the Mark Home Page

Fort Wayne Cinema Center

Keep up to date on Public Education issues.

Follow us every day on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and Pinterest. Or sign up for email alerts whenever this blog is updated. Fill in the FOLLOW US BY EMAIL box in the right hand column.

###

Tuesday, July 8, 2014

Vic’s Election Notes on Education #20– July 8, 2014

Dear Friends,

Governor Pence is ready to lower the boom on State Superintendent Ritz at tomorrow’s State Board of Education meeting.

Perhaps he is miffed that the State Superintendent brought up a reading assessment proposal at the recent Roundtable meeting that he opposed. Perhaps he hasn’t gotten over the 2012 election.

A resolution entitled “Resolution Regarding Amendments to Meeting Procedures” would remove the powers of the State Superintendent to determine the location and date of meetings and to make rulings as the chair.

Apparently, the election is still being contested by the Governor and by members of the State Board who instead of respecting the decisions of Superintendent Ritz as the elected State Superintendent are attempting to diminish her powers rather than abide by her judgments as a duly elected official.

This is a direct threat to our electoral system in our democracy. The Governor and several State Board members are acting as if they are unaware of the concept that when voters empower an official by electing them, that elected official’s judgments and policies deserve respect until the next election.
[Please note: Indiana Code 3-14-1-17 says that government employees including public school employees may not “use the property of the employee’s government employer to” support the “election or defeat of a candidate” and may not distribute this message “on the government employer’s real property during regular working hours.” Ironically, the law does not prevent private school employees from using computers purchased with public voucher money to distribute campaign materials. Private schools now financed in part by public voucher dollars have retained all rights under Indiana’s voucher laws to engage in partisan political campaigns.]
The Election of 2012 and the Election of 2016

It is hard to know whether opponents are still fighting the election of 2012 or preparing positions for the election of 2016 by trying to make Superintendent Ritz look weak.

The “Resolution Regarding Amendments to Meeting Procedures” would strip several powers of the State Superintendent and give them to “Board staff”, a concept that didn’t exist last year on the 4th of July and was put in place without any policy review or approvals by the Indiana General Assembly. Governor Pence created “Board staff” by cobbling together $6 million dollars in the already passed state budget and creating the Center for Education and Career Innovation (CECI) by executive fiat.

There was controversy about when to have a special meeting of the State Board in June. When it was held on June 23rd, disagreements erupted over a resolution brought by Brad Oliver who wanted to insert State Board oversight at the last minute over the federal waiver which the Indiana Department of Education was preparing for submission on June 30th. Superintendent Ritz denied the addition to the agenda on procedural grounds. Instead of accepting her ruling, the Governor and State Board members want to change the procedures so that she can never rule against them in the future.

Based on that confrontation, Governor Pence proposes the following specific changes to be voted on tomorrow, July 9th:
  • “Board staff” instead of “The Chair” shall “determine the location of the meetings”.
  • “Special meetings will be held at a date and time convenient to the members and at a location determined” by “Board staff” instead by “the Chair.”
  • The procedure for appealing a ruling “applies to all actions and decisions otherwise addressed in these Board Meeting Procedures, including but not limited to, calling a special meeting or the addition of agenda items.”
  • Any dispute about the interpretation of Board Meeting procedures will be settled immediately by a vote “during the meeting in which the dispute arose and may not be delayed to a future meeting.”
  • The current Ad Hoc committee procedure to revise Meeting Procedures is deleted.
The complete resolution and the redline change of Meeting Procedures can be seen on this link:

http://in.gov/sboe/files/2014-07-09_SBOE_operating_procedures_update.pdf

It is easy to see why State Board members want these changes. They want to win every battle. They believe they know better than Superintendent Ritz, and they want to prevail. They want the power of the Chair.

It is not as easy to see why Governor Pence wants to raise this highly partisan battle at this time.
  • · Does he think that crushing the powers of the lone Democrat in the Statehouse will bolster his presidential credentials with the right wing of his party?
  • · Is he trying to punish Superintendent Ritz for speaking out for reading assessments at the recent Education Roundtable meeting and forcing him to publicly oppose the proposal?
  • · Is this payback to Superintendent Ritz because her financial officials recently announced that Governor Pence’s voucher expansion program is no longer a money saver for the state but instead has become a new net fiscal expense costing $15.8 million?
From his point of view, the voters put a thorn in his side, and now he is trying to weak it and remove it to the extent possible.

Governor Pence has already demonstrated that he favors private school over public schools. He has already signed a budget giving public schools historically low funding for non-recession eras (only 1% increase in the current year, far less than the current official 2.1% cost of living increase) leaving many public schools in dire financial condition. The list of electoral talking points is growing if he now wants to take out the powers of the duly elected State Superintendent.

Make no mistake: Governors have great power. He could stop this assault on the power of the State Superintendent overnight if he wanted to. If his super majority is ready to crush one of their few opponents, he could call off the dogs. The fact that he hasn’t done so is telling.

Perhaps in the glorious buzz of a presidential run for Governor Pence he has forgotten that Superintendent Ritz got 1.3 million votes, more than he did, in the 2012 election. She has many supporters who trust her judgments in helping Indiana students achieve. They know that she is a skilled educator and not a long term politician. They know that she has been surrounded by political opponents from Day 1 in the Statehouse and many of her policy initiatives have not even been given a fair hearing.

Only time will tell if this highly partisan attack in the middle of July will succeed. July is traditionally the month when the State Board takes a break and does not even hold a meeting. This group does not take a vacation. Perhaps they think with so many people on a July break, no one will notice what they do to the powers of the elected State Superintendent.

Contact the Governor and State Board Members

The State Board meeting where this resolution will be considered is tomorrow, July 9th at 9am in the Government Center South. If you feel strongly about keeping the current powers of the Chair in the hands of the State Superintendent, contact members of the State Board and the Governor today.

Urge them to respect the wishes of over 1.3 million Hoosiers who voted to give Glenda Ritz the powers of the office, not thinking that political attempts would be made to undermine and reduce the authority of the State Superintendent. This partisan plan is unseemly for the supermajority to pursue and could backfire on them politically. Urge them to withdraw this resolution.

Tell them you respect Superintendent Ritz as our elected State Superintendent, and they should too. Tell them if the supermajority in Indiana acts to crush the powers of the State Superintendent, it will be long remembered by the fair-minded voters of Indiana who want education policy to made with respect for duly elected officials and without partisan rancor.

Please send your messages today. In addition, it would be a good idea to send copies to members of the General Assembly. They are supposed to have a strong hand in education policy, and they like to keep hyper-partisanship out of the education arena.

Glenda Ritz strongly supports public education. Thanks for working to support public education!

Best wishes,

Vic Smith

There is no link between “Vic’s Election Notes on Education” and any organization. Please contact me at vic790@aol.com to add an email address or to remove an address from the distribution list.

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 #180 – July 8, 2014

Dear Friends,

The banned metrics of measuring student growth by comparisons with peers are back again. Despite a law getting rid of them, the State Board will vote on a resolution tomorrow to use them another year.

HEA 1427 was passed by the Indiana General Assembly in 2013 saying that the A-F system in Indiana “may not be based on a measurement of student performance or growth compared with peers.” This culminated a three year effort to fix the flawed A-F system by rejecting the use of bell curve statistics in assessing student growth and by measuring the growth of students against fixed criteria.

Now, a resolution brought by State Board member Brad Oliver is on the July 9th State Board agenda which, among other topics, would use peer comparisons to measure growth again in 2014-15.

It is as if the General Assembly didn’t pass HEA 1427 at all. How can the State Board continue to ignore the law?

I urge you to contact State Board members before their July 9th meeting to say that the “Resolution Regarding ESEA Waiver Compliance” is wrong on growth and should be withdrawn.

Evading the Law

I and others have been campaigning against the unfairness of judging growth through comparisons to statewide peers since 2011. I rejoiced when the Indiana General Assembly passed the following language in 2013 in HEA 1427, Section 5:
“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. The new standards of assessing school performance:
(1) must be based on a measurement of individual student academic performance and growth to proficiency; and
(2) may not be based on a measurement of student performance or growth compared with peers.
511 IAC 6.2-6 is void on the effective date of the emergency or final rules adopted under this section.”
I thought the law would actually be implemented, but state board members have resisted. State Board Secretary Dan Elsener has stated many times in meetings his support of the current system that the General Assembly tried to void. Now the Oliver resolution breathes more life into the flawed growth measure using the following language: (this is but a small part of the resolution with many controversial points)

“WHEREAS, Dr. Damian Betebenner, an associate at The National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment in Dover, New Hampshire, who advised Indiana on the creation of the Indiana Growth Model, and who is under contract with the SBOE to advise on modifications to the state’s A-F school accountability system, has found that growth may be calculated utilizing data from the2014-2015 ISTEP+ assessment using an equi-percentile concordance analysis that will be both valid and reliable.
  • Per SBOE regulation, 511 IAC 6.2-6 shall be followed for the A-F School Accountability System for federal and state accountability purposes;
  • Growth in 2014-15 shall be calculated according to the methodology recommended by Dr. Damian Betebenner and approved by the SBOE;”
Dr. Betebenner has described in a report that his recommendation is based on Student Growth Percentiles, the same methodology Dr. Bennett put in the A-F system that the General Assembly tried to void due to the peer comparisons used.

Dr. Betebenner devised the system that the General Assembly rejected. Of course he is going to say that it is just fine.

This resolution shows that the State Board has made no progress in getting Indiana to criterion-referenced comparisons for growth as the General Assembly asked for and as we all should ask for.

Send a Message

I urge you to send a message today to State Board members with a copy to your legislators. The message is that the “Resolution Regarding ESEA Waiver Compliance” has not been vetted and should be withdrawn. It tries to reverse the General Assembly’s action in HEA 1427 to remove peer comparisons from Indiana’s growth model.

The entire proposed resolution with all of its controversies can be seen on this link:

http://in.gov/sboe/files/2014-07-09_Resolution_-_ESEA_Waiver.pdf

It is astonishing that the State Board is ignoring the call for fair comparisons in Indiana’s growth model. The growth of every student should be measured based on fixed criterion measures, not on Student Growth Percentiles or any other metric where growth can vary based on how peers across the state perform.

Your messages make a big difference. Thanks for participating! Please keep up your steadfast support of fair metrics to judge the performance of public schools!

Best wishes,

Vic Smith

ICPE has worked since 2011 to support public education in the Statehouse and oppose the privatization of schools. The new ICPE membership year began July 1, 2014 and extends through June 30, 2015. We need your membership to help pay the bills for ICPE lobbying efforts. It is time for all of our supporters to renew for the new membership year. I urge you to go to our website today to renew your membership. Thank you!

We must raise additional funds for the 2015 session. We need additional members and additional donations. We need your help and the help of your colleagues who support public education! Please pass the word!

Go to www.icpe2011.com for membership and renewal information and for full information on ICPE efforts on behalf of public education. 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.
###

Monday, July 7, 2014

CALL TO ACTION: Tell the Governor, State Board of Education, and your legislators to allow Superintendent Glenda Ritz to do her job

Reposted from the Indiana Coalition for Public Education--Monroe County and South Central Indiana
When over 1,300,000 Indiana voters of both parties elected Glenda Ritz for state superintendent of public instruction it was a clear message that we wanted change in education. However, Gov. Pence, his appointed state board and the supermajority in our state legislature have spent the last two and a half years denying that mandate and throwing roadblocks in Ritz’s way.

We have watched in amazement as our state legislature continued the attack on public education and even introduced bills to take away Ritz’s authority. When these bills failed, we were outraged to see our governor use his executive power to create a second, shadow department of education, the Center for Education and Career Innovation, using millions of our taxpayer dollars.

This blatant usurping of Ritz’s authority and continual disrespect to the voters is now to be compounded by new rules being put forth tomorrow, July 9th, which replaces responsibilities of the chair (Ritz) with the “board staff” or CECI for creating agenda items and procedures.

Granted, it is a difficult situation to have a publicly elected superintendent and her department of education try to work effectively with a state board of education and a SECOND department of education who are tasked with the corporate reform agenda of the governor. The addition of an expensive, unnecessary education department chaired by Claire Fiddian-Greene (who is not an educator) further complicates the situation. All concerned claim to be “for the kids” yet one side represents a democratic process; the other represents an undermining of that process.

It would seem that our legislators who sit passively by and allow our children to be pawns in this political game are ignoring our message in allowing the governor and many of his state board members to void our votes.

Let us be clear:

We voted for Glenda Ritz because we believe that public education is the cornerstone of our democracy.

We voted for Glenda Ritz because we believe that public tax dollars belong in public schools.

We voted for Glenda Ritz because we believe in the profession of teaching and that educators, not politicians, should make policy decisions.

We voted for Glenda Ritz because we know that testing does not equal teaching and that our children are suffering under the use of tests as punishments to schools, teachers and kids within.

We voted for Glenda Ritz most of all because we know that these politicians, fed by their donors, care more about turning our schools into a for-profit venture where the dollar, not the child, is the bottom line.

How can we support Glenda Ritz and reinforce our votes and get our message across? Vote wisely this fall. In the meantime:

Contact Governor Pence: http://in.gov/gov/2333.htm

Contact the SBOE members: http://www.in.gov/sboe/2527.htm and http://www.in.gov/sboe/2423.htm

Contact your state legislators: https://capwiz.com/nea/in/home/
###