Judge rules Bennett's teacher contract forms illegal, calls requirements "unconscionable."

INDIANAPOLIS — A county judge has ruled that a state-pushed standard teacher contract form that would have allowed Indiana school districts to change or increase their hours without paying them more is illegal.

Marion County Judge Patrick McCarty permanently barred the Indiana Department of Education and state Superintendent Tony Bennett from using the standard forms, which all school districts would have been required to use. He said the department doesn't have any legal authority to unilaterally contradict existing contract law.

Continue reading at  Judge throws out Ind. teacher contract forms

Ind. Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Bennett Sold Out, Refused to Follow His Own Ed.D. Research

The following piece was written by Doug Martin back on May 11, 2011. You can find the orignial post here.

Indiana Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Bennett sees teachers and their unions as worse than Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) snaking throughout the locker rooms and hallways of Indiana’s public school buildings. Yet, after setting out on his pilgrimage to prove in his doctoral dissertation that teachers’ unions and teachers’ contracts were negatively influencing Indiana education, the former principal and basketball coach stumbled across a rude awakening. His research suggested the direct opposite.

In The Effects of Just Cause Contract Language on Teacher Dismissals in Indiana Between 1999-2004, Bennett (2005) discovered that school corporations in the Hoosier state “have not encountered measurable resistance by teachers’ unions against their recommendations to dismiss teachers” (p. iii). Additionally, Bennett wrote: “Just cause contract language has not presented insurmountable hurdles for school corporations as they work to improve teachers’ performance and behavior” (p. iii). Neither did he find administrators claiming they were in any way handcuffed from holding teachers to high standards (iii-iv).

Given that many doctoral candidates statistically analyze survey data, one can give Bennett the benefit of the doubt for not doing enough preliminary work before embarking to disprove his own thesis. Yet true scholars change their arguments to fit the data, elaborate on those arguments, add more sources to back up those arguments, and put that knowledge into practice in the real world. If anything, you’d think that after confirming his ideas wrong, coach Bennett would be out in full-force tailgating for the teachers and teachers’ unions every step of the way. Sadly, this will never happen.

Truthfully, Bennett has staunchly supported school privatization for years as a way to one day financially cash-in.* With the plutocrats now applauding his every rant and rave, the counterfeit Bobby Knight of State School Boards might very well become a millionaire as soon as he exits the superintendent’s office and fully joins the charter school cartel. Or they may just laugh him off, since I don’t think Tony Bennett is bright enough to write believable school-reform propaganda. But, then again, neither are many of the Ph.D.s/Ed.D.s who are spitting out and spinning the research funded by the school privatizers. Although he’ll never be a straight-shooter, Tony Bennett could still become a dribbling hero after all. Let’s hope he just bounces himself right into the dumpster of Hoosiers long forgotten.

Contextual Accountability

John Kuhn, a Superintendent of Public Schools in Texas, unveils not only the charter school myth but also why new teacher evaluation schemes will not work in this piece that calls out  faux reformers.

Every school is a microcosm of the community it serves—that is, every school that serves any and all students in the neighborhood. Peaceful schools are nestled in peaceful environs. If there are drugs or violence in the streets, educators will contend with drugs and violence working their way into the school like crickets through unseen cracks. If there are racist or misogynistic attitudes in the homes, they will manifest themselves on campus. And so it goes. If there is materialism, superiority, entitlement, narcissism, coldness, anti-intellectualism, vanity, laziness, or greed ensconced in the hearts of the parents or grandparents or neighbors or pastors or businessmen or family friends who act out their human dialogues in the public space shared with students, then students will bring traces of those attitudes with them into class and the air will hang with secondhand dysfunction.

Educators spend entire careers—some without even realizing it—trying to accentuate and play off of students’ positive outside influences and minimize or at least sidestep their negative ones, just to prepare the groundwork so they can teach their content. Teaching doesn’t happen in a vacuum, an obvious fact which bears repeating only because it’s so common to hear people go on and on about teacher quality as the ultimate driver of student learning. Too many experts spout the mogul-endorsed “no excuses” mantra reflexively when the conversation turns to the context of student lives, and in so doing effectively refuse to talk seriously about the increasingly debilitating conditions of that context.

As though it doesn’t matter. As though it needn’t be tended to. As though a serious education can occur no matter what is going on there. “Poverty isn’t destiny” is trite and meaningless and pretends to honor poor kids for their wide-open potential while actually disrespecting their experiences and neglecting to patch their holes; it posits that there is no such phenomenon as generational need and that neither public policy nor wealth distribution warrants consideration as a contributing factor in the formation of American kids. Poverty is water in the gas tank of education, but its apologists facilely condemn a pit crew of teachers who—not allowed to say the water won’t combust—are pushing sputtering lives, but not fast enough, around a track where youthful suburban rockets whiz by in their mall rat garb.

Meanwhile, high-performing charter schools are portrayed as having cracked the code when it comes to educating poor inner city students. In reality, the quiet secret to their trumpeted success is simply a strategic divorce of cultures. Via lottery-purified enrollment, high-hurdled parent involvement, and hair-trigger expulsions, the highest of the high-performers embrace select children from the neighborhood while flatly rejecting the broad sweep of the neighborhood’s culture, preferring to substitute their own pre-manufactured culture-like products. Culture goes to neighborhood schools; it is there that we see the health or frailties our nation’s policies have wrought in our neediest zip codes. Tragically, creatively-selective charter schools portend national blindness to the suffering our policies foster.

This is, of course, far less inspirational than the heroic charter school packaging we see on Education Nation’s store shelves. Our nation’s model charters haven’t cracked a code for educating inner city students; they have cracked a code for isolating motivated inner city students and parents who see education as a way out of poverty, and filtering out the rest. They do this by implementing exclusionary practices not available to traditional schools. Charters are free to purify their campuses of undesirable test scores, and the media will reliably gloss over attrition rates and highlight academic results that have been fully uprooted from the context that saddles every nearby traditional public school. Ultimately, the hope of the school reformer is tangled up in a knot with non-universal education. When they hold up choice and charters as our nation’s panacea, their sleight of hand may temporarily obstruct our view of the kids left out on the sidewalk, the kids unwelcome in their brave new dynamic, but it doesn’t disappear them from the face of the earth. After charters capitalize on the manipulation of context, that context still exists and it still has a name and a face and a future. The media ulimately asks us to pretend that shuffling ruffians fixes them, that a shell game with troubled kids is something noble, is “the answer.” But context will win out.

Click to continue reading at The Educator's Room.

Remember Kindergarten?

If you don't know what this post is all about, ask a kindergarten teacher how much time they have for play anymore, between all the testing and "rigorous" work they must do to "prepare for the 21st Century Learning Initiative.

America misses you,  Mr. Rogers.

Before Tony Bennett's 2012 "State of Education" Speech, A Reminder of the Data Exaggerations from His 2010 Speech

Tony Bennett is scheduled to give his third “State of Education” tomorrow night (Tuesday) in Indianapolis.

After he gave his first such speech in 2010, I wrote an article about data exaggerations he used in his speech.  I have reviewed the article from two years ago, and I believe it is appropriate to reprint it for you here as preparation for the speech tomorrow night and as part of the “hold Tony Bennett accountable plan” which culminates in the election on November 6^th. 

This explains one more reason why I am supporting Glenda Ritz for state superintendent in the election.  I lost confidence in Tony Bennett’s accuracy early in his term, and this article provides a clear illustration of this problem.

As you read, keep in mind that this article (in bold print below) was written in October, 2010.   I have not changed or updated it:

              “Waiting for Fact Checking:  How Many Drop Outs and Failing Third Graders Do We Really Have?” 

In his major State of Education address on August 23rd, Dr. Bennett cited the following statistics about deficiencies in Indiana schools: 

“We must close the door on a system that allows 23,000 Hoosier students to drop out of high school each year. We must close the door on a system in which 25,000 third graders cannot read at grade level.”

The editors of the Indianapolis Star were impressed with those numbers and featured them in their lead sentences of the Sunday Star editorial (8/29/10): “Each year in Indiana, about 25,000 children fail to acquire basic reading skills by the time they complete third grade.  Each year another 23,000 Indiana students also drop out of high school.”

I’ve been waiting for fact checks on these two attention-grabbing numbers.  But who would ever check?

Not teachers or administrators. They are far too busy.  Not the press, although one might argue that fact-checking is their role.  The Star editors were all too eager to repeat the numbers as stated.  Not university professors.  They are doing scientifically-based research.  I decided to look into the numbers myself.

IDOE data for the Class of 2009, the most recent available, show that 8.7% dropped out in the 4 years from 9^thgrade to graduation.  With 75,905 in that cohort, 8.7% is 6604 dropouts, which of course includes not only declared dropouts but also students who disappear and can’t be documented as transfers, those known as “Undetermined.”  Now if one 4-year cohort had 6600 dropouts, what could Dr. Bennett have meant by saying our system “allows 23,000 Hoosier students to drop out each year”? 

I checked other cohorts. The Class of 2008, with 10.3% dropouts, had a total of 8000 (actually 7997) in four years.  The Class of 2007 had 9100 dropouts (actually 12.0%, 9107).  The Class of 2006 had 8600 (actually, 11.4%, 8596).  Add them up (2006-2009) and we get:  6600 + 8000 + 9100 + 8600 = 32,300 drop outs in four cohorts. 

That would be an average of 8000 per cohort.  The cohort count includes four years.  That’s still too many drop outs, but it’s a long way from 23,000 per year.  Not even close.

Would the 3^rd grade statistic be easier to document?

I remembered that State Board member David Shane used numbers in testifying last January on the 3^rd grade reading bill, saying that “18,929 3^rd graders failed English/language arts on ISTEP.”

How did the third grade reading problem grow by 6000 students since January?   

 Checking Spring 2010 ISTEP+ actually revealed fewer failures in Grade 3, with 15,130 not passing the test. 15,000?  That’s a long way from 25,000.  Further, the IDOE data show that 4,997 of the 15,130 failures were special education students.  Only 10,133 were general education students, the population that would be considered for retention in the reading plan. 

That is a long way from 25,000.

Perhaps failing 3^rd grade ISTEP+ was not what Dr. Bennett meant by “cannot read at grade level.”  ISTEP+ is a language arts test which includes reading but does not produce a reading score.  In fact, to implement the retention plan, a new reading test needs to be added to ISTEP+, to be piloted in Spring, 2011 and used to retain 3^rd graders in Spring, 2012.

Given that we have no state reading test, citing a statistic on how many couldn’t read at grade level is a tall order. 

I started thinking about other data sources:  Acuity?  No state level data is reported.  National Assessment?  No, that’s 4^th and 8^th grade.  Wait, maybe Dr. Bennett made a mistake and meant 4^th grade instead of 3^rd grade.

National Assessment is a random sample test given every two years; a small sample of Hoosier students take it. In 2009, 70% of Indiana’s fourth graders reached the nationally defined basic level in reading, better than the national average of 66%.  The IDOE 4^th grade count in 2008-09 was 78,805.  If 30% were below basic on NAEP, that would be 23,641, assuming the random sample truly reflected the entire group.  Still, that is 1400 below Dr. Bennett’s statistic and addresses 4^th grade, not 3^rd.      

I had to give up my quest and conclude that Dr. Bennett’s 3^rd grade number could not be documented. Perhaps a new data source will someday enlighten me.

What’s going on here?  In the major speech of the year, two leading statistics can’t be documented.

Do officials ever footnote their statistics?  Not very often.  Do statistics ever get stretched for political purposes?  Yes.  Does anyone ever notice?  Not often.

Everyone wants to improve the status quo, but differences often erupt on which new change will bring the biggest return, e.g. whether to invest in early childhood initiatives or merit pay incentives.  Dr. Bennett, as he pushes changes for Indiana, should bring unassailable, thoroughly documented data to the debate. 

Accuracy matters.  Credibility matters.  I have lost confidence in Dr. Bennett’s numbers.  I hope he will start documenting his statistics with footnotes.

End of article.

In hindsight, Tony Bennett’s “enhanced” reading statistics used in the speech helped push through the controversial and, to many, unpopular IREAD program.  As far as drop outs, statistics have improved to 6.4% for the Class of 2010 and 6.1% for the Class of 2011.

We have gone long enough with a state superintendent who stretches the numbers for political purposes.   Another key example was the use of cherry-picked Florida-Indiana comparisons as the basis for the September 2009 Roundtable meeting when the claim was made that since Florida was ahead of Indiana in 4^th grade reading on the National Assessment, we should change our policies to mirror Florida.  No one mentioned the fact that Indiana has consistently over many years outscored Florida on 8^th grade reading as well as on 4^th and 8^th grade math.

I support Glenda Ritz to restore credibility and accuracy to the office of State Superintendent of Public Instruction.

I urge you to donate to the Ritz campaign, but more importantly, to talk with non-educators who trust you about the issues and enlist their support for Glenda Ritz.  It will take a lot of that if Tony Bennett is to be upset in this election. The urgency is clear.  I hope you will help.

One last question:  Will anyone be fact-checking tomorrow night?

Best wishes,

Vic Smith      vic790@aol.com

 “Vic’s Election Notes on Education” is not linked to any organization.

Standardized test scores are worst way to evaluate teachers

From Isabel Nunez, an associate professor at the Center for Policy Studies and Social Justice at Concordia University Chicago, in commentary from the Chicago Sun Times.

As a university professor and educational researcher, I sometimes feel like I’m in that old ’50s horror movie, “The Blob.” Remember that one, where an invader from outer space grows with everything it eats, until it is a giant monster that threatens the entire town? Testing has done the same to education, harming students and schools — and is now poised to bring down the whole enterprise by taking over teacher and principal evaluation.

• I am part of a group called CReATE, or Chicagoland Researchers and Advocates for Transformative Education, which is trying to unite the voices of academics in opposition to these changes and to the corporate takeover of public education. We are trying to spread the message that what is happening in our schools today is not supported by the research.

Meeting expectations? Yes. We expected it to be bad and it is.

Wednesday's Herald Press reported a Huntington County resident went in front of the School Board to discuss concerns he had about the iPad pilot program.  The headline reads, Board Hears iPad Worries. The article continues on the back of the newspaper with the tagline, "School corp. had anticipated bandwidth issue."

These lines frame the summary of administration's position:  We're hearing positive news. We expected there to be a few wrinkles.  We will work these out.  Many teachers have had training. Besides, this is all new and just a pilot. Don't worry.

Huntington Community residents, you should be worried. 

First, the article moves directly from the resident's concerns to administration saying they are hearing mostly positive feedback. One can only hope that, for the sake of brevity, the author skipped mention of administration telling this resident his concerns will be seriously considered. 

This resident is a parent with experience in Information Technology.  He predicted the serious issues being experienced. His posts on flawed implementation of the "21st Century Learning Initiative" are recommended reading. This from the parent's blog on the iPad initiative:

Tony Bennett’s flawed A-F system is hurting efforts to bring jobs to Indiana

The Mayor of Goshen drove three hours to bring that message to the only public hearing on the A-F model last January.  His community was working overtime to attract new businesses, and the first thing businesses ask is about the quality of the schools.  He knew the schools were top notch, serving a student population of great diversity, but Tony Bennett’s grading system was undervaluing the schools in his community.  For the sake of economic development, he asked for a revised plan to grade schools.

He was ignored, but in an election season when jobs and the economy are the biggest issues, Tony Bennett should have listened.  Since January, I have heard many express the mayor’s concern, asking:  Why would Tony Bennett want to undervalue and degrade the schools of Indiana when our communities are struggling with the Great Recession and the loss of jobs?  Why wouldn’t he want a more accurate and more realistic profile of our schools to be available for economic development efforts?

Is the A-F system unfair in the way it devalues many Indiana schools?
Clearly and definitively, the answer is yes.

What is the evidence of this injustice?

So, how's your school year going so far?

Here might be the simplest thing every teacher in Indiana can do to create the best positive outcome for public education and Hoosier students this year.

Everywhere I go, friends and family ask me, “So, how’s school this year?”

I simply say, “Great!  Could you please do me one favor?”  When they give me that curious look implying, tell me more, I continue with, “Please do not vote for Republican Tony Bennett for State Superintendent.  You could really help out public education by voting for Glenda Ritz this year.”

Will Republican Voters in Indiana Get Hoodwinked Again?

Tony Bennett is the Republican candidate for Superintendent of Public Instruction in Indiana.  As an incumbent Republican in a conservative state, he’ll probably receive votes by default.  

But will Hoosier Republican voters truly understand what they are voting for if they punch the ticket for Bennett? 

Will Republicans Disapprove of Government Transparency ?
Bennett’s  Department of Education website has come under repeated scrutiny for transparency. 

Dave Bangert of the Lafayette News Online asked several independent researchers to look for information at the DOE.  One researcher described the website as (an attempt to) obfuscate the numbers so that the taxpayer has a lot of trouble knowing what is going on, even though the bureaucrats will maintain that they are ‘transparent,’” 

Will Republicans Accept Private Individuals Spending Public Tax Dollars?
Jon Awbrey puts it this way: “It is a patent violation of democratic principles of representation to dictate that parents alone should have the power to sell off property that belongs to all and to liquidate resources that the long generations before us have entrusted to the future of us all.”

HCCSC Parents Need to Know About Student Data Privacy

Parents, as Common Core State Standards (CCSS) are rolled out in HCCSC schools this year, it is now more important than ever that you understand your family educational rights to privacy.  The CCSS are being used to justify a national data base, known as the State Longitudinal Data Systems, to share information. 

 The information does not only include state wide assessment scores and educational data, it will include invasive personal data on students and families.  This data will be used to track children from birth into careers.  This data will be supplied to various Federal agencies and private researchers/companies determined by the DOEd.