Does the new system for giving letter grades to schools have a fundamental flaw?

In the State Board of Education meeting of October 5^th, Dr. Bennett asked the board to defer all other business to focus on the new criteria for assigning letter grades.  A proposed rule was presented and discussed by the board with the understanding that a revised rule would be brought to the board on November 2^nd for their approval.  Dr. Bennett said he wanted to quickly settle on a plan in order to apply for a federal waiver of the No Child Left Behind penalties, an offer made available this fall by Secretary of Education Arne Duncan.

The first step in the new letter grade proposal is to determine the performance of the school on math and English tests, following a traditional system of 90% = A, 80% = B, 70% = C, and 60% = D.  That grade can then be raised or lowered based on improvement, and improvement is based on whether students are achieving high growth as measured by the Indiana Growth Model.

Here lies the fundamental flaw.  The Indiana Growth Model is a norm-referenced measure.  Norm-referenced measures dictate quotas of high achievement based on the bell-shaped curve. The Indiana Growth Model designates 35% of all students as high growth and 35% of all students as low growth.  There is a limited quota each year of high growth students.

To cite one example of a proposed improvement bonus, a school’s lowest 25% of students must score high growth to a level higher than the 35% average performance:  42.5% in English and 44.9% in math.  With only 35% of students in the state showing high growth by definition, we know in advance that the predictable result is that only a few schools will get this bonus or the other bonuses.  Their grade will therefore be based on the overall performance of the entire school, and the words in PL221 calling for categories based on improvement will be ignored:

“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.”

Policymakers in the 1990’s abandoned the use of norm-referenced measures for the purpose of high-stakes testing because, by definition, only a limited number will score high on the normal curve.  Instead, 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 group of 35% is not fair and guarantees a quota of 65% that will not make the grade.  Yet, that unfairness is being embedded in the new criteria for school letter grades.

To my knowledge, Indiana is the only state going down this road of judging schools based on norm-referenced measures.  Other states know better, and so should Indiana.

Last Thursday, August 11th, in Marion County Superior Court #7, Judge Michael Keele heard oral arguments on the lawsuit claiming that the voucher law is unconstitutional.  At the end of the two hour hearing, he said his ruling would be issued “early next week.”

The twelve plaintiffs bringing the suit include three pastors, three teachers, a superintendent, a principal, a professor, a public school board member and a private school board member.  They are claiming that this law violates three parts of the Indiana Constitution:  Article 8, Section 1 and Article 1, Sections 4 and 6.  Speaking for the plaintiffs was John West of Bredhoff & Kaiser, Washington, DC.  The suit is being sponsored by the Indiana State Teachers Association.

Speaking for the defendants were Thomas Fisher, Solicitor General of Indiana, and Bert Gall of the Institute for Justice, a well-funded group in Arlington, Virginia that supports voucher laws throughout the nation.  The Institute for Justice wrote a brief as an intervener in support of the state law, and they wrote a second brief on behalf of two parents who want to use vouchers in order to send their children to parochial schools with state dollars.

In my view, citizens need only to read Article 1, Section 4 to know that this law is unconstitutional:

“No preference shall be given, by law, to any creed, religious society, or mode of worship; and no person shall be compelled to attend, erect, or support, any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry, against his consent.”

I should not be compelled to maintain religious school ministries with my tax dollars.  Public schools were cut by $300 million per year during the economic crisis.  They need more tax dollars, but this law diverts dollars to provide religious education.

I saw a recent television interview with a man registering his child at Kingsway Christian School using the voucher law, saying that he had no complaints against the Avon public schools where his child was getting a good education.  He said that he just wanted her to have a Christian education.  For 160 years since the 1851 Constitution, any citizen could make that choice using their own dollars, not with tax dollars.  The voucher law deeply and inappropriately entangles public dollars in support of religious school ministries.  It should not stand.

Judge Keele’s decision on this lawsuit will be appealed no matter which way he rules.  The general belief is that the appeal will go directly to the Indiana Supreme Court rather than routing it first through the Indiana Court of Appeals.  The judge has been asked in the suit to stop implementation of the program through an injunction until the matter is settled.  We will know this week whether the school year will begin with or without vouchers for private school tuition.

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.

Amazingly, the Indiana Senate has passed the voucher bill (HB 1003) with an amendment to give an income tax deduction for home school parents as well as for private school parents.  The amendment added on Tuesday (April 19^th) was never discussed in committee and would cost Hoosier taxpayers $3 million per year.

This tax break giving money back to home school or private school parents would be given on top of the vouchers available under HB 1003.  Parents making up to $61,000 for a family of four can get a voucher to pay private school tuition.  Then they can claim the tax deduction as well for textbooks, fees and additional tuition.

No such deduction is available to public school parents for their textbook fees.

This is an outrageous addition to a bill that was already bad.  Taxpayers should not provide tax benefits or other services for home schools.  They are not regulated or inspected by state education authorities and should remain completely independent from the state in all respects, including funding and tax breaks.

The damage that HB 1003 would do to public school students was already obvious.  Funding private school tuition with taxpayer money under the bill’s provisions would transfer $58 million in the next two years from public school students to private school students.  This cost estimate is from the non-partisan Legislative Services Agency based on 7500 transfers to private school in the first year and 15,000 in the second year.  These caps are written into the law, but after the second year, there are no caps.  Private schools can then expand with no limits on the public dollars they might receive.

On April 21^st, nine Republicans joined all 13 Democrats in standing up for public education and voting “No” on the voucher bill.  It was not enough.  Governor Daniels and State Superintendent Bennett found 28 Republican Senators to support the bill.

The House and the Senate have passed different versions of HB 1003, and now the only slim hope is that the bill will die in the conference committee process.  The two versions will be considered on Monday or Tuesday, April 25^th and 26^th.  The last day of the session is April 29^th.

The voucher bill was already the biggest public school privatization proposal of our generation.  It would give Indiana the most extensive private school voucher plan in the nation.  Now it even includes public tax dollars to help home schools.

Public tax money should only go to public schools.   PDK members should contact House members as well as Senators to kill this damaging bill as the two versions are reviewed this week.

The voucher bill, House Bill 1003, is embroiled in the center of the walkout by the House Democrats, and well it should be.

Every red-blooded PDK member who believes in public education should bristle at House Bill 1003.  It would give vouchers equal to 90% of the local districts tuition support to any student qualifying for reduced lunch, which equates to a family of four making $40,000.  Then it gives a 50% voucher to a family of four making up to $81,000.  These are not low income families.

This plan did not even fly within Speaker Bosma’s own Republican caucus, so this morning’s Star (March 3rd) describes a new Republican amendment lowering the 50% voucher to families of four making $61,000 and capping the number of vouchers at 10,000 in 2011-12 and 20,000 in 2012-13.

You should still be bristling.

In Indiana, 45% of all students now qualify for free or reduced lunch and would be eligible for the 90% voucher.  45%! The 50% voucher could likely go to another 20% or so, making about two-thirds of all Hoosier students eligible for a private school voucher.

Private school vouchers are only available to students who leave a public school and transfer to a private school.  That forces a diversion of funding from public schools to private schools which despite the scaled-back plan remains in the range of $50 million.  That would be a huge blow to public schools already being given a flat-line budget and expecting more losses due to expanded charter schools.

PDK members from all over Indiana should urge House members to oppose the voucher bill.  If it gets through the House, we should oppose it in the Republican-controlled Senate.  Some Republican Senators have already announced their opposition.  Democrats in both the House and the Senate oppose HB 1003, so this would be a case of convincing Republicans that they should oppose the most profound attack on the concept of public education ever offered to the General Assembly.

Additional major concerns abound.  The bill will:

1. shatter the barrier between church and state in K-12 schools observed since the 1851 Constitution.
2. blur the line between athletic recruiting and granting vouchers to attend private schools.
3. not prohibit private schools from denying admission to the disabled; public schools are open to all.

Public dollars should stay with public school students.

The House Education Committee held a hearing last Wednesday (January 19^th) on Speaker Bosma’s proposed bill to expand charter schools, House Bill 1002.  In addition to public universities and the Mayor of Indianapolis who are currently authorized to sponsor charter schools, the bill would allow three new groups to authorize public charter schools:

1)     A new state charter school board

2)     Mayors of cities over 35,000

3)     Private colleges and universities

Private colleges and universities should be deleted from this plan. Private college boards are privately appointed and are not accountable to the public, yet under this bill, they would be given the authority to commit public tax dollars to start K-12 public charter schools and the authority to supervise them.  There is no way for voters to hold them accountable for their decisions.

This should not happen.

Many private colleges are sectarian while charter schools are to be non-sectarian.  Mixing sectarian and non-sectarian interests in this way would be a recipe for problems.

When Rep. Porter asked Dr. Bennett in the hearing why private colleges should have this authority, he replied that only Ball State has decided to sponsor charter schools and this “hasn’t yielded expansion.”

Surely, though, a new state charter board and more mayors would handle Dr. Bennett’s expansion without privatizing the charter school movement through private colleges, all with public tax dollars.

If you agree with me, urge your state representative in the House of Representatives to delete Section 4 (5) of House Bill 1002 to keep public charter schools under the supervision of public authorities.

Our gridlocked Congress, now grinding to a close, did not change the flawed Adequate Yearly Progress measurement of the No Child Left Behind Act.  Consequently, it is still damaging the reputation of high performing schools.

When the Indiana Department of Education announced the new AYP results for 2010 on November 23^rd, the weakened respect for the federal AYP system was clear.  The first noticeable change was that Indiana’s state accountability outcomes (PL221) were given top billing in the special meeting of the State Board of Education.  This is the first time both state and federal results were released simultaneously.  Federal AYP outcomes were given less attention and subordinate treatment.  After discussing the state results in some detail, Jeff Zaring then briefly summarized the federal AYP results, which showed that 18% of Indiana’s high schools made AYP, but 82% did not.  Among elementary schools, 76% made AYP.

This contrast shows the invalidity of the AYP measure.  Large high schools have large special education counts with high percentages of more severe disabilities.  Elementary schools often have less than 30 special education students and therefore do not have to report on that subgroup.  Elementary special education includes many high ability speech pathology students who correct their speech problem and do not appear in the high school subgroup.  These factors which are vital to making AYP have nothing to do with the overall effectiveness of the school.

At the Nov. 23^rd meeting, State Board member Mike Pettibone asked how many schools had been capped at the state’s Academic Progress level because they did not meet federal AYP.  He said “AYP is a flawed system.  How do we keep that from hurting schools?” He said that separating AYP from the new criteria for PL221 has been “enthusiastically received.”  Then he asked, “Is it going to happen?”

Jeff responded by saying, “I know one state superintendent who will pursue it with the Secretary [Arne Duncan].” Dr. Bennett said, “We will make a strong case at the federal level.”

No one, it seems, is speaking up for AYP as a useful measure, a huge change from the last AYP outcome release in April of 2009.  Yet it is still there and still hurting schools.

Consider, for instance, the case of Fishers High School in Hamilton Southeastern Schools.

In November, Fishers won the 5A high school football title at Lucas Oil Stadium.  It is a comprehensive high school with quality programs and strong community support.  With high test scores on the 2008 GQE (87% passed math compared to 65% statewide; 86% passed English compared to 67% statewide) and on the 2010 End of Course Assessments (80% passed Algebra compared to 61% statewide; 84% passed English 10 compared to 63% statewide), Fishers High School has earned a reputation as an excellent high school.

But in the eyes of the federal government, Fishers is a failing school.

Why?

In 2008, Fishers High School missed AYP based on one category:  special education English.  It needed 32 special education students to pass the GQE English test, but only 31 passed.  It missed by one special education student.

In 2010, it also failed to pass in one category:  special education English.  Exact test counts were not available on the website.

The problems caused by the AYP system were fully predicted in a famous essay by Lowell Rose entitled “NCLB – A Tragedy Unfolding“, dated July 28, 2003, where he explained the inevitability of universal AYP failure:

“The tragedy associated with the NCLB is that it offers such promise . . . but then takes the promise away with a system that:

• Judges corporation and school performance in a way that has nothing to do with effectiveness, rewards those that test few students and are predominantly white, and penalizes corporations and schools that test a large number of students and have diversity;
• Substitutes punitive sanctions for the assistance needed by corporations and schools serving those students on the lower end of the achievement gap; . . .

And, in so doing, guarantees that:

• NCLB will self-destruct under its own weight;
• The time, effort, and energy devoted in an effort to comply with the Act will be wasted;
• And the promise NCLB had for serving those students most in need will become another disappointment in the effort to improve student achievement.”

He concluded:  “Some may avoid the grim reaper for some time, but the outcome is certain from the start.”

Media are still reporting AYP results as if they are to be taken seriously.  They do not report that 72% of all special education students had to pass the test in order to make AYP. They do not report that next year that number rises to 78% and then to 100% in 2014. If they don’t report about the factors that make AYP an invalid system, the public will never understand the problem and the damage to schools will continue.

It is my goal that reporters, as they learn about the flaws of AYP, will start using the adjective “controversial” whenever they report on AYP.  To date, though, I have still not seen the phrase “controversial AYP system” in print.  We have a long way to go before a new Congress will end this injustice.

Public Question #1 on the November 2^nd election ballot will allow Hoosier voters to say “Yes” or “No” to putting property tax caps in the Indiana Constitution.

Despite the fact that I am one of those homeowners this proposal favors, I urge you to say “No.”

I say this because the Constitutional amendment on tax caps as proposed is unfair, unnecessary, and unwise.

UNFAIR – Many voters are not aware that two of our 92 counties are not initially included by the tax caps.   St. Joseph County (South Bend) and Lake County (Gary) are not covered by the 1%/2%/3% caps until 2019.  It takes a dense page of single space text to explain all this.  Constitutional amendments should not have exceptions for certain counties.  This problem alone should defeat the referendum.

UNNECESSARY – The tax caps are already the law.  This vote will not change any tax bills.  What it will do is set the tax caps forever, whether they turn out to be a good idea or not.  Forever is a long time.  This is not Constitutional material.

UNWISE – Already the impact of the tax caps are being felt all over Indiana in decreased public services:  library cuts in Indianapolis, closing the animal shelter in Muncie, cutting fire departments and park budgets all around the state.  Schools are heavily impacted through the property tax funds that pay for technology, maintenance, transportation and bus replacement.  The impact is not spread evenly, however, because some counties have so much property wealth that the caps have not yet been reached, while less wealthy counties have already implemented the caps and budgets have been slashed.  We may see a day when the public consensus supports local officials who say they need more flexibility in providing essential local services than the caps will allow.  Putting the caps in stone in the Constitution will permanently end that flexibility, and with it, local control.

Join me in helping to keep local control alive by voting “No” on Public Question #1 on November 2^nd.

The House Republicans of the Indiana House of Representatives, in their election agenda issued in early September, have called for private school vouchers and expanded private school tax credits if they gain control of the House in the November 2^nd elections.

I oppose private school vouchers and tax credits, which would divert public money to private schools and insure the slow death of public schools through the gradual loss of both funding and community support.  Therefore I must oppose the efforts of House Republican to win a majority in the House with my vote and with my voice.

Specifically, House Republicans call for public dollars to fund “grants” to allow students in “failing schools” to attend private schools, ignoring numerous public and charter options already available.  They also call for an expansion of the tax credit program passed in the 2009 budget which diverts $2.5 million in state tax money to fund private school scholarships for “low-income families”.  “Low-income” as defined in the 2009 law includes those making up to $81,586 for a family of four.  Is that really “low income”?

Control of the House has been determined by a razor thin margin for years.  Currently, Democrats hold the advantage 52-48.   In 2005, when Republicans last recaptured the Indiana House by a 52-48 margin, I witnessed an epic legislative battle for several months on a bill to establish both private school vouchers and tax credits.  Finally on April 7th, an amendment to remove vouchers  from the bill passed 57-41 vote, with 10 courageous Republicans bucking their caucus leaders to resist private school vouchers.

Now, after retirements and primary election defeats, only two of those ten are still in the legislature.  More recently in the  2010 short session, an amendment to SB309 was offered to allow tax credits for contributions to private schools, and only two Republican representatives opposed it.

The picture is clear.  If they are in control, the Republican leadership will not fail in their efforts to bring private school vouchers and expanded tax credits to Indiana.

Therefore, the Nov. 2^nd election is a referendum on the blockbuster issue of our generation:  privatizing schools by supporting private schools with public funds.

This fundamental issue should not get lost in the din of campaign ads on other topics.  With a legal mission to teach the Constitution and the attributes of good citizenship, public schools have been the key institution responsible for perpetuating our democracy.  Giving public incentives to attend private and parochial schools will ultimately weaken public schools and destroy the community support that they must have to give all students who show up at the door a quality education. It will accelerate the fragmentation of our society along sectarian lines.

I believe that Indiana’s Constitution got it right in Article 1:”No money shall be drawn from the treasury, for the benefit of any religious or theological institution.” Our public policies must avoid financial entanglements with religious schools.

Advocates for public education who agree with me need to be aware that those supporting private school vouchers believe they are on the brink of success for a goal they have pursued for years.  Whether public dollars stay with public schools or will be diverted to private schools will be determined in the all-important November 2^nd election.  Those who wish to protect public schools from these privatization strategies should actively participate in the election for members of the Indiana House of Representatives.  On this crucial issue, the battle lines are clear.

The Roundtable and State Board meetings on August 3rd produced historic changes and laid the groundwork for more to come. It is hard to know which of the actions listed below will be seen by the next generation to have the most impact. Several of the issues were clearly controversial among Indiana educators.

Despite the controversies, not a dissenting vote was cast in either meeting on any of these issues.  Here are the details:

1. First, Dr. Bennett recommended that the Roundtable adopt cut scores for Algebra 1 and English 10 that were higher than the teacher cut score committees recommended. Wes Bruce reported that the teachers recommended a level that would fail 29%, but the IDOE recommended a higher level that would fail 34% in Algebra 1. Similarly, the English 10 teacher recommendation was also made more rigorous by the IDOE, raising it by two standard errors of the cut score data.  The Roundtable adopted the IDOE recommendations, as did the State Board of Education later that day. They also voted to raise the cut scores again sooner than the normal 6-year cycle.
2. Second, the Common Core Standards were adopted by the Roundtable on a voice vote, and the State Board adopted them that afternoon. The highly acclaimed Indiana Standards in English and Math have now been replaced by standards prepared by a coalition of 48 states.
3. At the afternoon meeting, the State Board adopted the rule changing the PL221 category labels to letter grades A through F. We now have the labels first proposed by the Indiana Chamber of Commerce in 2001, but the criteria for applying the labels are still up in the air. New York City announced this summer that their schools would be graded on the curve, with 10% getting D’s and 5% getting F’s.  Will Indiana follow suit?
4. The State Board adopted cut scores as recommended by the IDOE for the IMAST test, the modified exam offered to up to 2% of the students under federal rules. Once again, teacher recommendations were made more rigorous in 7th grade math and social studies.
5. The State Board voted to begin rulemaking procedures on placing private outside managers in charge of schools taken over by the state as a consequence of PL221. The proposed rules privatize the schools to the point that the contracted manager will not be required to follow the collective bargaining or teacher contract laws. Did the legislature intend to give the State Board the power to nullify bargaining and contract laws when they passed PL221 in 1999?  Look for hearings on this controversial rule this fall.

These are major issues of substance for which there is a body of disagreement among Indiana educators. Labeling schools with letter grades, for example, was opposed by 62 of 63 speakers during two hearings on the subject. Opponents, however, apparently have no representation, because on August 3rd, a day of historic votes, not one dissenting vote was cast.

The hearing on giving letter grades to schools is getting a “do over”.  Since this time it will not be held during ISTEP testing, perhaps you will be available to come and speak your mind on this proposal.

What happened?  Didn’t the state board vote to adopt letter grade labels on May 5th?

In the Superintendent’s Mail of Friday, June 11th, the IDOE announced that another hearing must be held on July 9th at 9am in the Indiana State Library, 315 W. Ohio St.  The reason for this second unexpected hearing is that the notice of the April 30th hearing was not printed in the Indianapolis Star and thus did not meet legal requirements.  The hearing must be held again, and then the state board must vote again in order to legally adopt the rule giving schools letter grades.

The controversial proposal was opposed at the April 30th hearing by 56 speakers and supported by 1 speaker.  The State Superintendent and members of the state board did not attend the hearing.  State board Administrator Jeff Zaring was the only official listening to the speakers, a move that did not go down well with the overflow crowd who wanted board members to hear their testimony.  Despite the opposition, the State Board voted just five days later to approve LSA Document 09-995 with only one dissenting vote.  Now, Document 09-995 is back for a new hearing.

Five questions come to mind:

1. Who discovered the error?  the Indianapolis Star? IDOE staff?  a knowledgeable citizen?
2. What did Dr. Bennett say when informed that the procedure was legally flawed and the controversial hearing must be revisited?
3. Why was the new July 9th hearing not announced at the June 2nd State Board meeting when the legal notice of the second hearing was filed on May 26th?
4. Will a press release announcing the July 9th hearing be issued by the IDOE?  The April 30th hearing was not publicized in any press release but still drew an overflow crowd offering five hours of testimony during a hectic week of ISTEP testing.
5. Will Dr. Bennett and state board members come to the hearing?

The June 11th notice in the Superintendent’s Mail goes on to say:  “The State Board of Education has taken advantage of this opportunity to clarify and amend the rule to reflect the State Board of Education’s intent.   The new draft includes language which requires the State Board to collaborate with stakeholders to determine the feasibility of (1) separating AYP from state accountability determinations; and (2) revising the criteria used to place schools in school improvement and performance categories.”

In other words, the proposed rule has been changed.  Let your legal mind consider this nuance:

The state board motion passed on May 5th said, “With the expectation that the Board and Department immediately will move to:  1) Separate AYP determinations from state accountability determinations; and 2) Begin the process to revise the criteria used to place schools in school improvement and performance categories; I move to adopt LSA Document No. 09-995 effective with the state accountability determinations to be made based on 2010-2011 performance.”

A careful reading will show that this May 5th motion gives a stronger commitment to separating from AYP and revising criteria than the new rule language, which says “The state board shall collaborate with appropriate stakeholders to determine the feasibility of the following:  (1) separating AYP determinations from state accountability determinations. (2) Revising the criteria used to place schools in school improvement and performance categories.”

“Determine the feasibility”?  That’s all?  Didn’t they say they “immediately will move to”? Has the board backed off from its clear statement to separate from AYP?  Many observers heard clear promises to do so during the week of the controversial hearing.  The IDOE could have approached the Obama administration months ago to separate from AYP, a system that Arne Duncan has recommended be changed in favor of a growth model.

It may take your voice at the hearing to cut the entanglement with AYP.  Or perhaps you are just ready to vent about letter grades for schools.  We all know the board’s intentions, but all citizens have a right to speak at the hearing.  Use the freedoms we celebrate on the 4th of July.  Come and share your thoughts on the direction this rule will take our schools.  It is your right to do so.