Gov. Mike Pence wants to see 100,000 more Indiana students enrolled in schools that earn grades of A or B by 2020. But guess what. Given recent trends, public schools are likely to surpass that goal way ahead of schedule
With no help from the policies the governor is promoting.
There were a little over 600,000 students in A and B public schools in 2012, the first year for the current grading system. By this year the number had jumped to over 750,000. Schools have made more progress in two years than Pence thinks they should be making in the next six.
Unveiling his 2015 legislative agenda last week, the governor lamented the fact that 100,000 of Indiana’s K-12 students attend schools with grades of D or F. That’s about 10 percent of students in public schools.
“My philosophy of executive leadership is pretty simple,” he said. “It’s to set big goals and offer solutions on how to achieve them, but also to stay open to other ideas that emerge in the legislative process or in conversations with Hoosiers.”
Let’s hope he means the part about staying open to other ideas. Because the solutions he proposes — expanding charter schools and increasing spending for Indiana’s private-school voucher program – seem irrelevant at best and counterproductive at worst. Continue reading
Gov. Mike Pence has got this feint-one-way-and-move-another business down to a science. Witness the education agenda that he unveiled yesterday, heading into the 2015 legislative session.
The blockbuster news – the headline generator – was the announcement that Pence is disbanding the Center for Education and Career Innovation, the super-agency that he created 18 months ago. The Republican governor spun this as an olive branch to Democratic Superintendent of Public Instruction Glenda Ritz. Ritz heads the Indiana Department of Education, which CECI and the State Board of Education have been doing their best to elbow into irrelevance.
“It is time to take the politics out of education in Indiana, or at least out of the State Board of Education, and get back to the business of investing in our schools in ways that prepare our kids for the future that awaits them,” Pence said.
Never mind that the governor dialed up the politics by creating CECI and naming board members who seem determined to undermine Ritz. He wants credit for making peace. Continue reading
The State of Indiana took over the five “persistently failing” schools in 2011 and handed their operation over to charter school operators. How has that worked out?
Four of the schools still got Fs in the 2013-14 school grades that were released this fall. One inched up to a D. This is after two full years of the turnaround operators being in charge and promising results.
The state takeover was profoundly disruptive to children and to staff. In Indianapolis, lots of students initially left the schools. Turnaround operators reaped a windfall in state funding for children who no longer attended. For a time, they also picked up the lion’s share of School Improvement Grants.
Even so, one of the turnaround operators, Tindley Accelerated Schools, is now bailing on its agreement to run Arlington High School, sending it back to Indianapolis Public Schools. Another, Edison Learning, appears to be emerging from a nasty fight with Gary Community Schools over who’s responsible for what at Roosevelt Academy.
It looks a whole lot like the turnaround experiment, not the schools, has been a failure.
But the State Board of Education’s response is to decide Indiana needs more state takeover, not less. Under current law, the state can take over a school after six consecutive years of F grades. Wednesday, the board proposed changing the law to allow takeover after four straight years of Ds or Fs.
That just doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense.
The Obama Administration’s proposal to rate and reward schools of education is just the latest salvo in America’s campaign to fix schools by improving the teaching profession. And as Dana Goldstein shows in her new book “The Teacher Wars,” this effort has been underway for a very long time.
Starting with the common schools movement of the early to mid-1800s, teachers have been the focus of a great deal of our anxiety about national progress and our children’s future. We’ve debated the best ways to recruit, train, evaluate, reward and fire teachers. We’re as far from agreeing as ever.
And in recent years – as often in our history – concern over bad teachers has becomes a “moral panic,” in which a small group comes to represent big societal concerns. How did it come about, Goldstein asks, that American teachers are “both resented and idealized” while countries like Finland and South Korea shower teachers with respect.
Goldstein is a journalist whose reporting on education has appeared in the Atlantic, the Nation, Slate and elsewhere. (She is now part of The Marshall Project, a nonprofit media organization covering criminal justice). She has a journalist’s sense of story and character. She understands that you write about individual soldiers, not the entire army. And the history of the teacher wars is rich with fascinating combatants, from the Civil War-era African-American educator Charlotte Forten to the Chicago labor pioneer Maggie Haley to the sometimes confrontational and often unpredictable union leader Albert Shanker.
As Goldstein shows, teaching entwines with the great social movements of American history: the settling of the West, the rise of feminism, the progressive movement, anti-communism, civil rights, and the creation, growth and decline of unions. It has always been inseparable from political philosophy: Progressives and accountability types have butted heads forever. Continue reading
I wrote last week that Jon Ford, the Republican who beat Democratic Sen. Tim Skinner of Terre Haute in the Nov. 4 election, was a “business owner.”
Apparently not. Good for the Tribune-Star for calling Ford out on his campaign deceptions. And for alerting the people of Vigo and Clay counties to the fact that their new senator’s former employer has accused him of misappropriating $56,400.
One the other hand, if someone from the paper had been checking court filings on a daily basis, the election may have had a different outcome.
So the Indiana Chamber of Commerce wants to make Indiana’s superintendent of public instruction an appointed position. That isn’t necessarily a bad idea. There are reasonable arguments for and against the approach, as the IU Center for Evaluation and Education Policy explained several years ago.
And to be fair, the chamber took this position before Hoosier voters elected a Democrat, Glenda Ritz, as state superintendent in 2012. The rationale is that the governor and the schools chief should be on the same page when it comes to education. Chamber President Kevin Brinegar says the governor “is seen as the true leader on education policy” and should have a superintendent who will implement his ideas.
Indiana is one of 12 states that elect their chief school officers, according to the National Association of State Boards of Education. In another 12, the governor appoints the education chief. In 23 states, the chief is appointed by the state board of education.
But even if you think Indiana’s superintendent should be appointed, there’s a wrong way and a right way to go about making the change.
The wrong way is what the chamber is proposing: Having the Republican-controlled legislature rewrite the law to remove Ritz from office before her term is up. Continue reading
High-poverty schools made impressive gains in the 2014 A-to-F grades that the Indiana State Board of Education released last week. So did other schools. Across the board, a lot more Indiana schools earned As and Bs and a lot fewer were labeled with Ds and Fs.
But the performance of schools serving the neediest children jumps out. Among the quarter of schools with the highest percent of students qualifying for free or reduced-price lunches, 30.2 percent earned As. Nearly half got As or Bs.
Just a year ago, only 20 percent of schools in that category got As. The year before that, just 12.7 percent of high-poverty schools got As. That’s real progress.
It’s still true that school grades reflect students’ socioeconomic circumstances. Indiana’s grading system, especially for elementary and middle schools, is based largely on students’ performance and individual growth on test scores. And research shows that test scores correlate with poverty.
Looking at the grades, you get the impression it’s nearly impossible for a low-poverty school to get a C or worse. And by low-poverty, I don’t mean just Carmel and Fishers. In the quarter of Indiana schools with the least poverty, up to 36 percent of students qualify for free and reduced-price lunches.
- Schools in the highest-poverty group were still as likely to get a D or F as an A.
- 65 of the 73 schools that got Fs were in the highest-poverty quartile.
- More than 90 percent of the most affluent quarter of schools got an A or B.