Indiana General Assembly

Contact your state legislators

Testimony on SB 296
Click here to read Vic's testimony on SB 296 February 20, 2012

Testimony on SB 384
Click here to read Vic's testimony on what he calls "the most dangerous bill still in committee

Testimony on SB 179
Recently Dr. Vic Smith gave his testimony for SB179 on February 13, 2012.  If you would like to read the testimony, click here.

Public Comments by Dr. Vic Smith
Indiana State Board of Education, Feb. 8, 2012

Since the January 17^th hearing on the proposed A-F letter grade rule, the IDOE has run the data and has found that 405 Indiana schools, or 22.6%, would have D’s or F’s.  Please contrast that figure with Florida, a state that Dr. Bennett has used as a role model for school letter grades.  Florida’s current grades show 6% of schools have D’s or F’s.  The contrast between 22% and 6% is remarkable, especially given the fact that National Assessment data show that on the same national test, Indiana has outscored Florida consistently on Math, Science, and 8^th grade reading, everything except 4^th grade reading.

This comparison leads to the conclusion that this proposed rule is a harsh standard that is roughly three times tougher than Florida in producing D or F schools, the schools that could potentially be subject to state takeover.  This conclusion is confirmed by the fact that the same data produced only 20% D’s and F’s last August using the old system.  Thus, the proposed rule produces over 40 more D’s and F’s than the system we are replacing.  Same data, harsher outcome.  Indiana schools do not deserve this treatment.  

The problem is in the anemic way the proposed rules award bonuses for improvement to elementary and middle schools.  Few bonuses will be given because the number of students labeled as high growth is limited to 34%.  Students may improve significantly, but if 34% improve more than they do, they will not be labeled as high growth and their schools will not get a bonus.

Some press reports incorrectly said that 34% of schools would fail.   The 34% quota applies to students, not schools.   Every year, 34% of Indiana’s elementary and middle school students will be labeled as low growth and 34% will be labeled as high growth.  The number of improvement bonuses will be controlled by these statistical caps.  Using bell-shaped curve statistics in the formula is not appropriate and not fair to schools.

It also may become the basis for lawsuits when IC 20-31-8-2(b) is considered:     (b) The department shall assess improvement in the following manner: (1) Compare each school and each school corporation with its own prior performance and not to the performance of other schools or school corporations.  The labeling of high growth and low growth students as proposed does indeed use comparisons involving other schools and school corporations.  Growth should instead be measured, as the law says, with each school being compared to its own prior performance.

Improvement can be measured with growth scores that do not use controversial norm-referenced quotas.  When Johnny tests 12 scale scores below passing one year and only 2 scale scores below passing the next year, he has shown growth , even thought he has failed both times.  When Johnny tests 2 scale scores above passing one year and 12 scale scores above passing the next year, he has shown growth  even though he has passed both times.  Measuring growth need not involve bell-shaped curve statistics.

Apparently the only changes that have been made since the Jan. 17^th hearing are to tighten how scores for limited English and special education students are handled, making them identical to federal rules.  There is great irony here.  The federal No Child Left Behind Act now stands discredited and disrespected across America largely over the unfair way it assessed special education and limited English students.  Now as the federal system is slowly unraveling, the department proposes to continue key parts of the failed plan in Indiana’s rules.  The original language on these points made better sense for Indiana, and I urge you to step beyond inappropriate federal influence and do what is best for Indiana.

To sum up, two issues leave this proposal fatally flawed:  1) Quotas of low growth and high growth students should not be statistically set at 34%, and 2) Failed federal policies on limited English and special education should not be embedded in Indiana’s rules.  I urge the members of the state board to table and rework this proposed A-F plan to avoid the sure problems these issues will create.

Vic’s Statehouse Notes #96– December 23, 2011                                                                                                   

Dear Friends,

At the November 7^th State Board of Education meeting, a proposed rule was passed to change the way letter grades are assigned to schools.  The public hearing for these crucial rules has now been scheduled for Tuesday, January 17, 2011 at 10am in the Riley Room at the Indiana Department of Education, 151 W. Ohio St., in Indianapolis.

Here’s the problem:  The proposed rules incorporate a clear injustice to elementary and middle schools which must be corrected.  The previous rules for PL221 categories lasted a decade, and these new rules could well last that long as well.  A decade of injustice can result in tremendous damage.  Low school grades can produce state takeovers by private corporations.  Therefore, this hearing deserves your close attention and participation.

Where is the injustice?

The proposed rules set statistical quotas for improvement in elementary and middle schools.  Every year, by definitions in the rule, 34% of all students will be labeled as high growth.  This will set a statistical limit to the number of students that schools will need to get a bonus for improvement.  On the other end, 34% of all students will be labeled as low growth, and schools with too many of these students will get a grade reduction.  Year in and year out, even in a year of great success, 34% will still be labeled as low growth, a figure that will impact the grades of many schools.

This quota system will guarantee a steady stream of low growth students and therefore a steady stream of low school grades leading to state intervention.

January 17^th is the only public hearing available to influence the State Board of Education to change their mind about this plan.  Comments can also be added online, but the biggest impact will be made by a large crowd at a long hearing.

A Personal Note

This edition of “Vic’s Statehouse Notes” was delayed by health problems.  On the weekend before Thanksgiving, I severely sprained my ankle, and the next day my wife Katie experienced a major eye hemorrhage.  A month later, I am limping along, but Katie required eye surgery which was followed by two major complications and continuous pain.  We hope 2012 will bring a complete recovery, but whether I can send more information before January 17^th is unknown.  Therefore, I will put everything in this set of notes that will explain the problem of quotas that Dr. Bennett does not see and to provide information to anyone who wants to object to this injustice in the hearing.

Logic alone has not persuaded the state board to correct this problem.  I spoke to the board during public comments in the November 7^th state board meeting, asking them to remove the 34% quotas imposed by the use of norm-referenced statistics.  My comments from November 7^th are attached.

The board listened but made no changes.  Only a large turnout of parents and community leaders as well as educators objecting to the use of quotas in the grading system will get the board’s attention.  The precedent for this is the hearing on PL221 category definitions on September 6, 2001, when hundreds of people from all over Indiana came to testify in a 2-day hearing that the proposed rule would give Hoosier schools lower grades than they deserved.  The state board listened and made drastic changes to the proposal.  Of course, things are different a decade later.  Back in 2001, state board members actually sat and listened to all the speakers in the hearing.  Now, Dr. Bennett sends staff members to run the hearings.  Also back then, the state board tried to accommodate parents and educators by holding the first part of the hearing in the evening.  Now hearings are always held on weekday mornings during school and work hours.  Nevertheless, the notion stands that a strong public response at this hearing will make a difference for our elementary and middle schools.

I am not the only voice to raise the issue of embedding statistical quotas in the grading system, but the issue has not been well publicized.  When statistics are the issue, eyes quickly glaze over.  This is a complicated system.  Therefore, as I provide the following details, I will be as precise as possible in explaining the proposal and the problem.

1. THE PROPOSED PLAN :  ELEMENTARY AND MIDDLE SCHOOL GRADES

The Indiana Department of Education presented the following point system to the State Board of Education on November 7, 2011, and the State Board approved the proposed rules.  The only public hearing has now been set for January 17^th.  Points translate to letter grades using the following scale:  

                3.51 – 4.00 = A /  3.00-3.50 = B  / 2.00-2.99 = C  / 1.00-1.99 = D  / 0.00-0.99 = F

(If you feel yourself getting bogged down in these next details, skip on to 3. The Results)

English/Language Arts

1)      Performance:  90%+=+4.0/ 85%+=+3.5/ 80%+=+3.0/ 75%=+2.5/ 70%+=+2.0/ 65%+=+1.5/ 60%+=+1.0

2)      Growth:  >42.5% scoring high growth among the lowest 25%  =  +1.00 bonus
                  >36.2% scoring high growth among the highest 75%  =  +1.00 bonus
                                                                                         

>39.8% scoring low growth among ALL students  =  -1.00 penalty

3)      Participation:  <95% tested of the previous year’s lowest 25%  =  -1.00 penalty                            <95% tested of the previous year’s remaining students  =  -1.00 penalty  

Math

1)      Performance:  90%+=+4.0/ 85%+=+3.5/ 80%+=+3.0/ 75%=+2.5/ 70%+=+2.0/ 65%+=+1.5/ 60%+=+1.0

2)      Growth:  >44.9% scoring high growth among the lowest 25%  =  +1.00 bonus
                 >39.2% scoring high growth among the highest 75% = +1.00 bonus      
                 >42.4% scoring low growth among ALL students  =  -1.00 penalty

3)      Participation:  <95% tested of the previous year’s lowest 25%  = -1.00 penalty
                        <95% tested of the previous year’s remaining students  =  -1.00 penalty  

Grading Scale  E/LA and Math points are averaged and the following scale is applied:

                3.51 – 4.00 = A /  3.00-3.50 = B  / 2.00-2.99 = C  / 1.00-1.99 = D  / 0.00-0.99 = F

2. THE PROPOSED PLAN :  HIGH SCHOOL GRADES

English 10 ECA (30%)

1)      Performance:  90%+=+4.0/ 85%+=+3.5/ 80%+=+3.0/ 75%=+2.5/ 70%+=+2.0/ 65%+=+1.5/ 60%+=+1.0

2)      Improvement:  >10.3% more passing in 10^th compared to 8^th grade = +.50 bonus
                        >0.1% fewer passing in 10^th compared to 8^th grade  = -.50 penalty                                >59.3% more passing in 12^th compared to 10^th = +.50 bonus                  
                                                                      

Algebra 1 ECA (30%)

1)      Performance:  90%+=+4.0/ 85%+=+3.5/ 80%+=+3.0/ 75%=+2.5/ 70%+=+2.0/ 65%+=+1.5/ 60%+=+1.0

2)      Improvement:  >17.1% more passing in 10^th compared to 8^th grade = +.50 bonus
                        >0.1% fewer passing in 10^th compared to 8^th grade = -.50 penalty            
                        >62.8% more passing in 12^th compared to 10^th = +.50 bonus

Graduation Rate (30%)

1)      Performance:  90%+=+4.0/ 85%+=+3.5/ 80%+=+3.0/ 75%=+2.5/ 70%+=+2.0/ 65%+=+1.5/  60%+=+1.0

2)      Effective 2014-15: 34.4% receiving 1 of 4 types of honors diplomas = +1.00 bonus   

         32.8% receiving general or waiver diploma  = -1.0 penalty

College and Career Readiness (10%)

1)      Percentage of graduates passing AP/IB/3 hrs college credit/industry certification

25% = 4.0/ 18.4%-24.9% = 3.0 / 11.7%-18.3% = 2.0 / 5.0%-11.6% = 1.0        
                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

Grading Scale  Points for four elements are weighted (30/30/30/10) and the following scale is applied:

                3.51 – 4.00 = A /  3.00-3.50 = B  / 2.00-2.99 = C  / 1.00-1.99 = D  / 0.00-0.99 = F

 

3. THE RESULTS

Using current data, the State Board was told on Nov. 7^th that these criteria produce D’s & F’s as follows:

                Elementary & Middle Schools       26%   D & F

                High Schools                               16%   D & F

                All Schools                                  24%   D & F   (24%  A / 25% B  / 27% C)

Consider these comparisons---

                Indiana D’s & F’s in 2011               20%              (49% A / 11% B / 21%  C)

                Florida D’s & F’s in 2010                 7%

                New York City D’s & F’s in 2010    19%

Under other proposed rules approved by the State Board, D’s or F’s could lead to state takeover.  That is a huge new consideration for D schools.

 

4. THE PROBLEM

These numbers reveal a deep problem with these criteria:

• National Assessment data for 2010 clearly show that, on the same NAEP test, Indiana schools score better than Florida or New York City schools.  Why are Hoosier schools graded lower than Florida or New York City? 
• There is no reason to think that Indiana has 4% more schools failing than in the August 29th (2011) grades.  Why are Hoosier schools graded lower than 2010-11?
• There is no reason to think that Elementary and Middle Schools should be failing at a much higher rate than Indiana high schools.  That is counterintuitive to the experience of most Hoosier educators who would say that faster growth is found in elementary grades than in secondary grades.  Why are elementary/middle schools graded lower than high schools?

 

5. THE ANALYSIS

There are no good answers to these questions.  Grades are arbitrary judgments determined by the State Board.  The excessive percentages of low grades for elementary and middle make this set of judgments unjust.

The root cause of the elementary and middle school problem is that improvement bonuses and penalties are all based on counts of high growth students which are limited by statistical quotas each year.   Using the Indiana Growth Model, 34% are high growth students each year and 34% are low growth.

What’s the deal about 34%?  Subtitle:  Will Eyes Glaze Over?

A clarification about this 34% quota would be helpful here, although explaining statistics is always risky for those who want people to keep reading.  Here goes:  The Indiana Growth Model takes all students in Indiana who score, for example, a scale score of 230 on Test 1.  Then the same students are reviewed a year later on Test 2.  Inevitably, some students will go up several scale scores and some won’t.  When the gains of the “230 group” are plotted, they will form a normal curve.  The top 34% of this group is labeled “high growth”.  Why?  Well, 34% approximates the upper one-third of the normal curve and also approximates the percent above the first standard deviation in any normal curve.  There, I lost you for sure on that one.  Suffice it to say that statisticians like to divide things up by standard deviations.  So, 34% get a “high growth” label and 34% on the low end get a “low growth” label.  The 32% of students in the middle are considered to have “average growth”, but this group leads to no bonuses and no penalties.  IDOE might have decided that maintaining average and expected growth in a school would be worth a reward, but they didn’t.

Now consider that this same procedure plays out for every scale score.  If every single scale score has 34% “low growth” labels, then algebra tells us that the total of all scale scores will produce 34% “low growth” labels.  The questions for schools in this system are twofold:  Will our school have a concentration of low growth students that will give us a penalty?  Will our school have a concentration of high growth students that will give us a bonus?

The problem for the system is that even in a year of superior achievement, there will always by definition be a quota of 34% getting labeled as “low growth”.  This is not fair and will mean that a predictable number of low growth students will be out there in good years and in bad to produce penalties leading to lower school grades.

The Shrinking Status of Improvement     

The targets set by IDOE to gain points were based on the top quartile (top 25%) of schools in Indiana using this year’s data.  The net result is a preordained limit on the number of bonuses to be awarded.  Only 34% of students statewide are “high growth” and finding 44.9% in math in a given school is a tall order.  Most schools will not gain a bonus in this quota system.  Therefore the grade will be based primarily on the original performance, not on any improvement factors.  Thus, improvement will shrink in importance.  While that is fine with IDOE, it is not in accordance with PL221, which clearly says that the grading categories should be based on improvement:

“IC 20-31-8-3   Categories or designations of school improvement established
Sec. 3. The state board shall establish a number of categories or designations of school improvement based on the improvement that a school makes in performance of the measures determined by the board with the advice of the education roundtable. The categories or designations must reflect various levels of improvement.”

In conclusion, the State Board has built categories based on performance, not improvement.  Since PL221 does not align with this plan, do not be surprised if instead of complying with the law, an effort is made to change PL221 in this regard in the legislative session to come.

If the law is not changed and the rule goes through as proposed, I hope some good lawyers examine the obvious disconnect between Sec. 3 quoted above and this new grading system, which is clearly based primarily on performance.

Reflections

The use of norm-referenced measures in state accountability systems ended years ago.  Policymakers in the 1990’s abandoned the use of norm-referenced measures for the purpose of accountability testing because, by definition, only a fixed and limited number will score high on the normal curve.  Instead, state accountability policies were based on criterion-referenced measures, wherein a criterion is set and all students who achieve that level can pass.  Limiting success to an ever changing quota of 34% is not fair and guarantees a quota of 66% that will not make the grade.  Yet, that unfairness is being embedded in the new criteria for school letter grades.

University testing experts in the 1970’s and 1980’s consulted regularly with IDOE to review best practices.  This consultation extended into the 1990’s when the accountability movement was absolutely taken over by criterion-referenced testing.  Norm-referenced tests were banished  for high stakes decisions.  This new proposal by Indiana in 2011 and proposals in Colorado, the originator of the growth model concepts that Indiana has adopted, are the first statewide efforts to reverse established practice and bring back norm-referenced quotas to make high stakes decisions.

It is my hope that university statisticians in Indiana will speak up on this issue, using their non-partisan reputations to steer Indiana away from quota-based grades.  Most states will shake their head in disbelief at the thought of judging success and failure limited to 34% based on quotas in the normal curve.

The High School Plan

The plan for high school grades does not include quotas.  All of the high school measures are criterion-referenced. 

Several have called for removing the penalty to be assessed in 2014-15 if more than 32.8% of graduates get general diplomas or waiver diplomas.  These two types of valid diplomas get no respect.  Waiver diplomas were made available by the Indiana General Assembly years ago after parents and students made the case that many students are very capable but they freeze up on the state test.  Their argument that a single test should not decide their future was accepted and standards for getting a diploma without passing the high school test were set.  State leaders generally denigrate waiver diplomas and are pushing all students to get CORE 40 or honors diplomas.  The most recent data from the Class of 2010 show that 75.9% of all Indiana graduates get a Core 40 or Honors diploma.   

With the exception of this controversy, the high school grading plan has received general support from high school leaders.  It does not carry the problem of limited quotas of success as found in the elementary/middle school grading formula.  

Community Participation in the Hearing

Dr. Bennett is correct that everyone notices school letter grades, including parents, realtors and business leaders.  We have to get them right. 

I have stated my case that elementary and middle schools are being treated unjustly in these proposed rules.  “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice,…”  The concept of justice is near the top of our national values.  It will take large numbers of parents and community leaders as well as educators speaking at the January 17^th hearing to bring justice to our elementary and middle schools. 

The only real questions are: Will you participate? Will you share this concern with others? Will you lead a group to correct this injustice?

I hope you will.

Join the Indiana Coalition for Public Education

The Indiana Coalition for Public Education stands in support of public education.  As the 2012 General Assembly begins and the voucher lawsuit continues its way through the judicial system, we need every advocate for public education to stand with us. We have established a legal fund to receive donations for legal costs related to ICPE Amicus briefs in the voucher suit.   Please join us and please consider adding a donation to the legal fund on the form below.

Also, if you have not renewed your membership since last year’s session, please use the form below to show your continued support.  We need every taxpayer who supports public education to be in our membership. Thanks!

Best wishes for a great holiday,

Vic Smith      vic790@aol.com

Vic’s Statehouse Notes #95– November 16, 2011

The astounding news from the November 7th State Board of Education meeting is that East Noble High School, North Daviess Jr-Sr High School, and Huntington North High School could be eligible for state takeover if they get a D or an F in 2012, along with many others.

Also on the same potential takeover list are Concord Junior High School, Mitchell Junior High School, and Jennings County Middle School.

As are Sunman Dearborn Middle School, Southwestern Middle School in Tippecanoe County, and North Harrison High School.  All three of these schools appear on my “Don’t Deserve a D” list, because they scored above 75% on the tests (80% is a B) and they showed positive year-to-year improvement.

Dozens of other schools are suddenly on the bubble for state takeover as well.

What’s going on here?

The State Board of Education passed near the end of the November 7^th agenda an unpublicized, eye-popping proposed rule.  If confirmed after public hearings, it would make 104 schools in 76 districts eligible for state takeover if they get a D or F in 2012.

This is overreach.

In the past week, Libby Cierzniak and John Ellis have sent out alerts to this new initiative which would speed up state takeovers.  Let me add my voice to this concern.

I will defer my concerns about the state board A-F model with its highly questionable quotas for high growth to the next edition of Statehouse notes.  In this message, I will focus on the effort to fast-track eligibility for state takeover.

Here are the details of a proposed rule which should be of concern to all advocates of public education.

LSA Document #11-562  

After a lengthy discussion and passage of the new version of rules to give schools letter grades, Jim Larson presented another set of proposed rules.  The agenda simply identified the item as “Approval of proposed amendments to 511 IAC 6.2-8 and 6.2-9”.  Of the seven proposed rule changes on the agenda, this proposal was the only one that had not been available to the public prior to the meeting.  Therefore what rolled out was a surprise to me and to many others.

Jim Larson is the Director of School Turnaround and Improvement in the IDOE.  He said that they have been trying to “meaningfully intervene” in 5% of the schools in alignment with statements made by Secretary of Education Duncan, and now they are looking at the next 6% to 10% of schools.  He said they “need to get at more schools.”  He said the new proposed rules would provide a “shorter timeline.”   State intervention could occur after a school is rated F in four consecutive years (instead of six) or after “any combination of 5 years of D or F”.  He said the rules contained a “parent trigger” which would allow parents to petition for state intervention after a school has received an F for two years.  Then he said the rules would specify that after schools complete the turnaround process they would become “independent schools” to be run by a seven-member board.

After his brief description, Dr. Bennett called for a motion to approve the rule proposal.  It was approved in a unanimous voice vote with no questions or discussion by state board members.

Yes, you read this correctly.  There were no questions or comments by state board members.

Speeding up the state invention process, the essential concept of this rule, was proposed in the 2009 General Assembly, but legislators rejected the idea.  In that session, the House and the Senate were led by different parties.  In the 2011 session, when Republicans had large majorities in both Houses, another bill to fast track state intervention in PL221 failed to pass the General Assembly. 

Now, without benefit of legal authority, Dr. Bennett is trying it again through the rule-making process.  The law still reads that the process to state intervention will be six years.  Apparently, Dr. Bennett believes that the 2012 General Assembly will change the law to allow intervention after four years, and by starting the rule-making process now, the rules can be passed and in place in time to intervene in the additional schools by next August.

How many additional schools will be affected?  Libby Cierzniak ran the data after the November 7^th meeting and here are the results:

• 104 schools in 76 school corporations will be eligible for state intervention if they get a D or F in 2012.  The list is attached.
• Parents in 236 schools in 124 school corporations could petition for immediate state intervention if the school gets a D or F in 2012.  That list is also attached as the second part of the file with the first list.

• Some reports say the proposal wouldn’t affect 2012 but would take effect in 2013.  While nothing in the proposed rule indicates a delay to 2013, this slower timeline would put 131 schools in 87 school corporations on the state intervention bubble if they get a D or F in 2012 and 2013.  This list is attached separately. 
  

These results were announced during the November 7^th state board meeting.  Results at the elementary and middle school level were not announced, but applying our beloved algebra tells us that if the high school count is 16% (of 389 schools) and the statewide count is 24% (of 1842 schools), then the elementary/middle school count getting D’s and F’s is 26%. 

Are Indiana’s elementary and middle schools 10% worse than our high schools, or is the grading scale flawed?

Making a D no better than an F

To me, the huge impact of this proposal is that getting a D has been effectively equated to getting an F.  A five category system has been reduced to four.  D schools that never make an F could now be subject to state takeover.

And is the grading distribution fair?  Do all D schools actually deserve a D?

The newly proposed A-F rules would give D’s and F’s to 24% of Indiana’s schools. 

At the high school level, the new grading plan gives D’s and F’s to 16%. 

Last year’s grades gave D’s and F’s to 20% of Indiana’s schools.  Have we declined this year, or should we doubt the grading scale?

When Dr. Bennett advocated that Indiana give letter grades to schools in the spring of 2010, he used Florida as his model.  Florida at that time gave D’s and F’s to 7% of its schools.  Are Indiana’s schools that much worse than Florida’s, or is our grading scale flawed?    

Actually, objective data can answer that question.  National Assessment (NAEP) data clearly show that Indiana students outscore Florida students on 4^th and 8^th grade math and on 8^th grade reading.  Indiana schools should not be demeaned compared to Florida, and our schools should not be graded worse than Florida’s schools.

This looks to me like a statistical method to expedite more schools, as many as 10% of our schools as stated in the meeting, into the state takeover pipeline. The end in sight is to give more private corporations contracts as turnaround operators of public schools.  This path of privatization does not have a proven track record in other states, has a slow start in the first three months in Indiana, and should not be fast-tracked in Indiana. 

Here is the irony of the week:  Dr. Bennett went to Guion Creek Middle School on November 14^th to honor Wilson Reyes, winner of this year’s coveted Milken Award.   I’m guessing that Dr. Bennett did not discuss the state board’s November 7^th actions on this proposed rule as he addressed the school staff.  You see, Guion Creek Middle School is on the list of schools that could be eligible in 2012 or 2013 for state takeover. 

Best wishes,

Vic Smith      vic790@aol.com

Vic’s Statehouse Notes #93– November 4, 2011
Dear Friends,

Indiana’s school letter grades that were handed out for the first time on August 29^thare flawed and harmful to schools in two ways:

C Schools May Actually Be A or B Schools

In Indiana’s current letter grade system, if schools have not passed the discredited federal Adequate Yearly Progress standard, they can get no higher than a C.  This link to AYP was written into Indiana’s system years ago and was endorsed anew in 2010 rule changes even after the State Board said they wanted to break the link to AYP.  Sixteen months before the letter grades were issued, the State Board passed a motion of intent to separate AYP from Indiana’s letter grades, but it still hasn’t happened.

Therefore, for schools that got a C, the public must ask:  Is it really a C or is it really an A or a B?  Unfortunately, the public seldom asks about the details.

The reputation of many excellent Indiana schools that should have an A or a B has been harmed.  On August 29^th, as this problem was being discussed, State Board Member Mike Pettibone asked for the number of A and B schools receiving a C.  Last year, nearly 200 schools took this hit.  IDOE staff leaders said they hadn’t run the data for this year.

Many D Schools Don’t Actually Deserve to be a D

Many D schools exceeded 75% on performance (math and language arts combined) plus they showed positive improvement from the previous year. If they would have reached 80%, they would have a B.  Instead, by falling just below 80%, they plummeted to a D.  This is not a fair grade for these schools.

Therefore, for schools that got a D, the public must ask:  Is it really a D that should be a C or is it really a D that deserves to be a D? The public won’t know.

This problem illustrates a flaw in the PL221 chart that was negotiated ten years ago.  The flaw has been highlighted in testimony before the state board for many years, but fixing this flaw was not included in Dr. Bennett’s reform plan.

A total of 42 schools received a D after scoring higher than 75% on performance and showing positive improvement.  This injustice should be corrected.

If you would like to see the whole list of 42 schools, it is attached.  Also attached if you would like to see all the details are my public comments on these problems presented to the State Board on Aug. 29^th and September 7^th.

Dr. Bennett commented in the August 29^th state board meeting that this is a “one year problem.”  New criteria for letter grades are being prepared and will be discussed at the next state board meeting, which was postponed from Nov. 2^nd to Nov. 7^th for reasons that were not explained on the IDOE website.  

Will the new criteria for letter grades treat our schools more justly?  That will be the subject of my next Statehouse Notes.

Best wishes,

Vic Smith      vic790@aol.com

Vic’s Statehouse Notes #92– August 15, 2011

Dear Friends,

Judge Keele issued his ruling late this afternoon in the voucher lawsuit.  He stated in his opinion that the plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on the merits of the case, and therefore he denied the preliminary injunction to stop the voucher program.

His opinion generally reflects the arguments made by the State in opposing the suit.

This is a disappointing ruling, although I was among many who believed it was unlikely that the plaintiffs would win at the trial court level.  Most observers expect that an appeal will be filed.  The plaintiffs have not announced their next step.

The long road continues toward a review by the Supreme Court.

For those who have been following the legal documents in this crucial lawsuit, Judge Keele’s ruling is attached for your review.

Best wishes,

Vic Smith      vic790@aol.com

Vic’s Statehouse Notes #91– August 12, 2011

Dear Friends,

To complete your collection of briefs filed in the voucher lawsuit, I have attached three that support the lawsuit and rebut the arguments of those who oppose it:

The first is the response by the plaintiffs to the State’s motion opposing the lawsuit.

The second is the response by the plaintiffs to the Institute for Justice’s request to allow two parents to intervene in opposition to the lawsuit.

The third is the Amicus brief filed by the Indiana Coalition for Public Education saying (1) that research does not support the State’s claim that student achievement is “flatlining” or “declining” in key areas and (2) that research does not support the contention that voucher programs create a competitive environment that has a positive effect on the academic performance of students.

I commend these all to you as key documents in this historic judicial review of the voucher law. 

With this email, you now have received seven documents:  the lawsuit itself and six briefs commenting on the lawsuit.  Judge Keele is reviewing these seven documents and will use them to issue his ruling “early next week.”  Based on these documents, decisions will flow that will impact schools in Indiana for generations.  This is most consequential school issue of our time. 

Now you can join Judge Keele this weekend in reviewing all the arguments.

 
Best wishes, Vic Smith      vic790@aol.com


Vic’s Statehouse News #90 – August 12, 2011

Dear Friends,

Three briefs were filed in opposition to the lawsuit against the voucher law:

The State of Indiana filed a motion to oppose the lawsuit. 

The Institute for Justice, a well funded group in Arlington, Virginia, filed a brief in support of the voucher law.

The Institute for Justice filed a brief on behalf of two mothers who want vouchers so that their children can attend a private school.

One point in the State’s motion deserves a direct rebuttal from my research.  One of the claims made in the brief, as you will read, is that “Only one in three of Indiana’s eighth graders can pass the national math or reading exam.”  The use of this statistic, derived from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is outrageously misleading.  Here’s how:

NAEP reports the percentage of each state passing three levels:  basic, proficient, and advanced. Most observers of NAEP data consider “passing” to be the percentage of students passing the basic standard.  In Indiana, 87% of 4^th graders and 78% of 8^th graders passed the basic standard in math.  The State’s brief, however, has apparently skipped this level of NAEP and has taken the unconventional position that “passing” is to be judged by the proficient standard.  In Indiana, 42% of 4^th graders and 36% of 8^th graders passed the proficient standard in math, figures which were rounded down to say “only one in three” are passing.

Diane Ravitch, in article entitled “The Myth of Charter Schools”(New York Book Review, 2010), has called this interpretation of NAEP data a “distortion”:

“I served as a member of the governing board for the national tests for seven years…  The highest level of performance, “advanced,” is equivalent to an A+, representing the highest possible academic performance. The next level, “proficient,” is equivalent to an A or a very strong B. The next level is “basic,” which probably translates into a C grade.”

      The State’s claim ignores the improvements Indiana has made in NAEP.  Indiana began the NAEP era in 1992 with a 4^th grade score of 16% passing the proficient standard.  In 2009, 42% of our 4^th graders passed the proficient standard.  Can the State really ignore an improvement from 16% to 42% so easily.

The The 4^th grade basic standard, improvement is also clear.  In 1992, 60% of Indiana’s 4^th graders passed the basic standard.  In 2009, 87% passed the basic standard. Of course we would like to see higher numbers, but improvement is clear.  Indiana 4^th graders outscored all but 15 states on NAEP math in 2009.

      Now let’s move to 8^th grade math.  The first Indiana NAEP scores for 8^th grade math came in 1990 when 17% passed the proficient level.  In 2009, 36% passed the proficient level.

At the basic level for 8^th grade math, 56% passed in 1990 and 78% passed in 2009.

Indiana 8^th graders outscored all but 14 states on NAEP math in 2009.

Stagnation is in the eye of the beholder.

The State’s general view that “scores on key measures of educational success have either flatlined or declined” is thoroughly refuted in the Amicus brief from the Indiana Coalition for Public Education that I will send you in the next email, along with two additional briefs from the plaintiffs responding to the opposition.

Best wishes, Vic Smith      vic790@aol.com

Vic’s Statehouse Notes #89– August 12, 2011

Dear Friends,

Yesterday, August 11^th, in Marion County Superior Court #7 with Judge Michael Keele presiding, oral arguments were heard on the lawsuit filed on July 1^st against the voucher law.

It’s the education question of our generation:  Should we spend public tax dollars for private and religious school tuition? The journey has now begun toward the resolution of this crucial question by the Indiana Supreme Court.

The hearing lasted two hours.  Speaking for the plaintiffs opposed to the law, eight of whom were present, was John West of Bredhoff & Kaiser, Washington, DC.  Speaking for the defendants were Thomas Fisher, Solicitor General of Indiana, and Bert Gall of the Institute for Justice, Arlington, Virginia.  As he closed the hearing, Judge Keele said he would issue his ruling “early next week.”

You would all know that I deeply oppose the voucher law and support the lawsuit against it.  Rather than sharing my commentary on today’s arguments, I think the best thing to do is to share the documents of this historical hearing for you to read and consider for yourself.

Therefore with this email I have attached for your review the lawsuit itself, filed on July 1, 2011.

Then in the next email, “Vic’s Statehouse Notes #90”, I will attach three briefs filed by opponents of the lawsuit.

Finally in the subsequent email, “Vic’s Statehouse Notes #91”, I will attach three briefs filed by those who support the lawsuit in rebuttal to the opponents.

This will make this space a non-partisan forum, showing the pros and cons and letting each person come to a personal conclusion based on the documents. That’s what Judge Keele will be doing this weekend.

This thought leads to a key point: the voucher law threatens non-partisan forums in our schools.  We have long grown accustomed to practices instilled by such leaders as Caleb Mills in the 1850’s to educate young citizens for the give and take of our democracy through a non-partisan forum.  Looking at both sides of an issue has been a given, but balanced discussions are now in jeopardy.  Religious schools, unlike public schools, are under no obligation to present two sides of any issue.  In fact, getting young minds to carry on certain doctrines and beliefs is the mission of parochial schools.  As more and more citizens are educated with public dollars in dogmatic one-sided settings and do not learn to consider the pros and the cons, running our democracy will become more and more difficult.

Judge Keele, as he concluded the hearing, said this lawsuit was “well briefed” and that he has “more work to do” in reviewing the briefs.  We should all follow his lead and read all of the briefs on this crucial issue of privatization that will shape the next century of schools in Indiana.    

Best wishes,

Vic Smith      vic790@aol.com

Vic’s Statehouse Notes #88– July 22, 2011

Dear Friends,

I certainly didn’t mean to go two months without sending you notes about Statehouse activities.  After suffering through the loss of our cat to a sudden illness and the loss of our Ford Windstar to an unexpected recall, we were then victimized by the torrential rains and floods of June 20^th that backed up sewers all over our neighborhood.  Having three inches of water in our basement, where Katie and I both have our computers, was the worst natural disaster in our 42 years of marriage.  Now with all of the tile replaced, we are just now getting things back in order.  I hope you had better luck than we did when the rains came.

As I cleaned up the water damage, many education stories went through my mind that I would love to comment on:  the worst state education budget years, the suit filed against the voucher law, the PL221 hearings at 18 schools, and the activities of the state board.  The announcement to be made today from IDOE about the probation schools and the turnaround school operators chosen by IDOE deserves immediate attention.

IDOE Mistakes in Implementing PL221   

As I see it, the Indiana Department of Education has made two major mistakes in implementing PL221 which could lead to lawsuits after IDOE announces which schools are still on probation and eligible for a possible state take-over.  The first relates to the comparisons used to judge the improvement of high schools announced in November, 2010.  The second relates to the selection of nonmobile students whose scores are used to determine improvement.

Will there be lawsuits over the issue of state takeovers?  That remains to be seen. Whether any group wants to challenge in court the IDOE’s interpretation of way PL221 should be implemented is not clear. Now that the consequences have been raised the point that a school board may lose control of an entire school to a for-profit operator, someone may decide to review the legal basis for making that step.  The rules, including the metrics chart, for implementing PL221 have never been tested in court to see if they align with the 1999 law.  The metrics of the PL221 chart were arbitrarily determined through negotiations in the fall of 2001.  Whether the metrics would hold up under judicial scrutiny when compared to the wording of the law is an interesting question which I will reflect on below. 

First let me explain what I believe are two mistakes:

High School Improvement

For the first four years of category placement, the Graduate Qualifying Exam (GQE) was used to judge the progress of high schools.  Then last year, the fifth year of PL221 data, the state changed the high school testing program to End of Course Assessments (ECA’s), taken at the end of Algebra 1 and English 10.  On August 3, 2010, Dr. Bennett presented his recommendations to the Roundtable that the passing score of the new high school tests be set higher than the one set by 16 math and 16 English teachers who had spent three days reading each item and setting a cut score.  In rejecting the teacher’s cut score, Dr. Bennett said we “need more rigorous demonstration of skills” than the teachers’ cut score. 

The teacher recommended cut score, for example, would have failed 29% in Algebra, as reported by Wes Bruce to the Roundtable meeting.  Dr. Bennett recommended a score which failed 35%.  The Roundtable accepted that recommendation, and the State Board confirmed it later that day.  Then when the statewide figures were announced in the fall, the passing rate was announced as 61%, or 39% failing.  What happened to drop the scores by another 4%?  After the Roundtable was given the figures, IDOE then added in the “undetermined” test scores, which are tests only partially taken or otherwise flawed. 

The result, if you followed the math, was that a teacher recommendation of 29% failing to pass turned into a final figure of 39% failing to pass, under the rationale of setting higher, more rigorous expectations on the new high school tests. 

The results of Dr. Bennett’s manipulation toward more rigorous standards were devastating.  High schools took it on the chin, and press reports were harsh:

49% fell into “academic probation”, the lowest category of PL221.

In the previous categories (2008), only 10% were in the probation category. 

The bottom two categories accounted for 75% of the high schools.

In the November 23, 2010 meeting when results were released, Jeff Zaring was asked “Why did we have an increase in probation high schools?”  His answer was “low performance and no improvement.”   He then explained that a built-in increase in expectations in the PL221 chart took effect this year.  To get out of the lowest category required at least a 3% improvement.  Then he said, “We have new tests.  Students are not passing the new test at a high level.”

But after recalling how the more rigorous standard was set the previous July, the question must be asked:  Wasn’t a decline in performance preordained by the way the new cut scores were set? 

Improvement scores were based on the comparison of how 8^th graders did on ISTEP+ in 2008 compared to how high school students fared on the new, more rigorous ECA in 2010.  No wonder improvement scores went negative around the state.  Improvement was based on an inappropriate apples-to-oranges comparison.  The state should have recognized this as an invalid comparison in the transition and declared a moratorium on judging high schools in that transition year.  Using the numbers as they did to grade high schools down in that year surely might be found invalid in a judicial review if someone takes the issue to court.

State Board members at the November 23^rd meeting were still confused about the high school situation after Jeff spoke.  Board member Neil Pickett said, “Help us understand what is going on.”  Board member Dan Elsener asked “Is it the formula or is it reality?”

Jeff Zaring’s answer was “Both.”

Think about that answer.  If the formula is problem, the IDOE could have a problem if their implementation is challenged before a judge.

Nonmobile Students

When the rule was written in 2001 regarding improvement, testing occurred in the fall.  The rule basing improvement on the nonmobile students has as its foundation the 1999 law which says the “department shall assess improvement” by among other items “comparing each student’s results for each grade with the student’s prior year results, with an adjustment for student mobility rate.”  This reference to mobility rate in the 1999 law led to the following statements in the 2001 rule:

a)      School improvement is based on increases in achievement of a nonmobile cohort group of students as they progress through school. Increases in achievement will be measured by percentage point increases in students who pass mandatory annual assessments in English/language arts and mathematics calculated as an average rate across subject areas and grade levels.

b)       The nonmobile cohort group of students referred to in subsection (d) includes students enrolled in the school for at least seventy percent (70%) of the school year preceding testing.

With testing in the fall, the question that the State Board wrestled with in 2001 was:  How long should a student attend a given school before the school is considered accountable for that student’s performance?  A debate broke out in the summer of 2001 between those who said that 80% of the preceding year (144 days) was the best measure of whether a student was in a school long enough to hold that school accountable and those who said 70% (126 days) was the best measure.  The State Board actually voted to make 80% the measure, but then changed the rule in the subsequent meeting under pressure from Gov. O’Bannon’s office to make it 70%, or 126 days “of the school year preceding testing.”  That meant 126 days of the previous school year.  A student couldn’t show up in September and take the fall test three weeks later and be counted as that school’s responsibility under the accountability plan.  It was considered an injustice to the school based on the law’s concern about mobility rate.  A student under this rule had to be in the school for at least two consecutive years.

Now, with spring testing, that is no longer true.  The IDOE has interpreted the 126 days to be in the same school year as the test.  Students can show up in September and can take the tests in March and April, and the school is held fully accountable for their performance.  Is that enough time for a school to impact the academic performance of a mobile student?  It’s a debatable question.

The legal question is the interpretation of (e) cited above.  Technically, if tests are given in 2010-11 in the spring, “the school year preceding testing” would be 2009-10.  Students would be in the school two consecutive years.  That is not how IDOE interpreted the rule after tests were moved to the spring.

The 18 schools awaiting their fate are mostly urban schools where mobility is a huge issue.  If courts are asked to review the determination, the interpretation of nonmobile students could become an issue.

Other Disconnects between PL221 and the Rules Implementing PL221   

In addition to these two concerns, the original language of PL221 does not match up with the metrics of the rules implementing PL221 in other ways.  Consider these provisions of PL221 that contradict what has been implemented or simply has been ignored:

The wording of the law says:

IC 20-31-8-4
Placement of school in category or designation of school improvement

Sec. 4. The state board shall place each school in a category or designation of school improvement based on the department's findings from the assessment of the improvement of each school under section 2 of this chapter. The state board must place those schools that do not show improvement and in which less than ninety percent (90%) of the students meet academic standards in the lowest category or designation.
As added by P.L.1-2005, SEC.15.

The rules adopted ignored the second sentence in this provision.  The chart does not implement these words.  Also, the PL221 chart downplayed the “the assessment of improvement” as the basis for categories as the law prescribes and instead made the assessment of performance the driving factor in the category metrics.

In another section, the law says:

IC 20-31-8-2

Secondary means of assessing improvements

Sec. 2. (a) In addition to scores on the ISTEP program test and other assessments, the department shall use the performance indicators developed under section 1 of this chapter and the benchmarks and indicators of performance in each school corporation's annual performance report as a secondary means of assessing the improvement of each school and school corporation. b) The department shall assess improvement in the following manner: ….

(3) Compare the results for a school by comparing each student's results for each grade with the student's prior year results, with an adjustment for student mobility rate. The education roundtable shall make recommendations concerning the incorporation of a statistical adjustment for student mobility rates into the results.

As added by P.L.1-2005, SEC.15.

There is no secondary means of assessing improvement in the IDOE implementation of PL221.  It is all based on ISTEP+ and ECA scores in math and English.  The curriculum has been narrowed to a focus on math and English language arts, even against the above stated advice of the 1999 law.  The end of the comprehensive school, the hallmark of the American education for over a century, is in sight.

Also, (b) (3) is not being followed.  Tracking individual results from one year to the next could be done through scale scores.  Individuals who are nonmobile could be tracked in this way.  However, the rules that were adopted ignored this sentence.  An adjustment for mobility rate was never adopted.  Instead, the pass/fail rate of the entire group of nonmobile students was compared from one year to the next.  That is far different from the law’s provision to “compare each student’s results for each grade with the student’s prior year results.”  IDOE has the capacity to track individual results in this way, but they don’t.

Those are my thoughts on the legal issues regarding PL221 and the way it has been implemented.  Whether anyone wants a judge to review the metrics of PL221 against the words of the 1999 law remains to be seen.

Join the Indiana Coalition for Public Education

The Indiana Coalition for Public Education stands in support of the lawsuit challenging the voucher law.  I will write more on this in future “Notes”.  We need every advocate for public education to stand with us. We have established a legal fund to receive donations for legal costs related to fighting school privatization in court.  Please join us and please consider adding a donation to the legal fund on the form below. We need every taxpayer who supports public education to be in our membership. Thanks!

Best wishes,

Vic Smith     

vic790@aol.com

 

 

Vic’s Statehouse Notes #87 – May 19, 2011