JG mischaracterizes Mitch's "mischaracterization"

Off to the side of their editorial today the JG listed the parties in the lawsuit against the state's voucher law. They used that list to show that the lawsuit was not filed to preserve the financial interest of the ISTA as the governor charged. Included along with the ISTA were the superintendent of the Lafayette schools (no financial interest there?) a member of the Lafayette school board and several others with no apparent ties (who knows?) to the government education establishment.

Balony. If the suit had been filed by parents or other parties with no financial interest in government schools then we might buy the argument that these parties were concerned solely about the (Indiana) constitutional questions. That would be fine. But as the governor said, the ISTA puts it's interest above those of the kids. The ISTA's charter is to look after its members first. The JG's charter is to look after Wendy.

ISTA gets religion

Well, actually it's the religion they've always had, namely keeping union teaching jobs. Claiming that because the vast majority of private schools where vouchers could be used are religious schools, the union says the voucher law is unconstitutional. Wasn't that issue settled by the Supreme Court a few years ago, saying that vouchers were constitutional if the kids were not given religious instruction? Well no matter, there was no way the ISTA was going to let this pass. The IDE said they expected the suit.

The biggest use of vouchers and the biggest impact on school budgets by far would be in urban areas where government schools are uniformly failing and where they are uniformly resistant to change because of resistance from teachers' unions. Their tenacity in holding on to their jobs traps kids without means in failing urban government schools. The "common schools" provided per the Indiana constitution are interpreted by the ISTA as government run and union dominated are common indeed.

All the reforms passed by the legislature are long term efforts, even without court challenges and delaying tactics. A far quicker tool for change is the strict enforcement of PL221 to take over schools in their sixth year of academic probation. No dumbing down the tests to get them off the hook. No second chances if they don't make it by year six. When they've had five years to change and did nothing until the fifth year they deserve no more time and no more sympathy.

What planet was I on?

On what planet would a high school going from one of the top ten in the state to one of the bottom ten be a cause for celebration? A hallelujah, born again moment. Where staying the course and watching it happen is considered strong leadership. Only on the Mork and Mendy public education planet.

I only went to the state's "public" hearing at South Side last night. As expected almost all the speakers were officialdom or teachers. Less than a handful of parents spoke. They were all committed to the reform bandwagon. Amazing what the threat of a state takeover did for their motivation after five decades of excuses. Like the JG said this morning they all asked for more time, if scores didn't improve this year.

That's probably what they'll get and I can't say I disagree with that, although they did nothing for six years. One year to turn around the deplorable situation at SSHS will not be nearly enough and the teachers who signed on to fix these schools would get the shaft if they're taken over after only a year. But as I said last night to Mr. Bennett and Co., continuous improvement will require continuous pressure from the state. The district showed that it couldn't reform itself without intervention and the continued threat of state takeover has to be maintained. The problem is really in the middle schools, and unless that's fixed, the high schools will have a tough time improving.

So stay tuned.

D-Day the 21st of June

In case you're among the (less than) 30% of Americans who know about the D-Day on the 6th of June, 1944 this is not that D-Day. That D-Day the Allies landed on the beaches of Normandy to liberate Europe and eventually my former country from the Wehrmacht. On the June 21 D-Day the Indiana Department of Public education will land at my former high school Fort Wayne South Side to liberate it from Wendy and Mark GiaQuinta. Well, I hope, maybe.

If they don't show sufficient improvement in the 6th year of academic probation under PL 221 SSHS (and NSHS) could be taken over by the state and put under new management (read charter school). The state will conduct a public hearing on the 21 st to get community input on that or other options. The hearing will precede the release of the latest test scores so an actual decision will have to wait on the data, which will be based on the delta between the ECA scores and the 8 th grade scores for the same kids the previous year. Since these two high schools are dependent on the k-8 schools that feed them, I don't see much chance of significant improvement until the feeder schools improve. That will take years. But there's probably not much chance the state would step in right away. Most likely they will get a pass for a year or two.

Both papers have recently run lengthy articles on the LEAD school process,which by and large were pretty well balanced, outside of Karen Frisco's tiresome, obligatory potshot at charter schools. Of course the district claimed in both JG articles that they consider this process as having started ten years ago. No way. Ten years ago Wendy and the FWEA were concerned only about getting all the buildings air conditioned. That turned into the $850 million remodeling wish list rejected in a remonstrance by property owners. Losing that may have caused a change priority but they didn't get serious until the state threatened to step in last year. That's what it took get the FWEA to "do the right thing".

The SSHS hearing will start at 5 pm in the (air conditioned) auditorium. According to IDE director of school improvement Lee Ann Kwiatkowski, the meeting will be conducted by Tony Bennett, who will talk for 5 minutes followed by Wendy who will explain the program at SSHS. So the IDE won't be dodging bullets on Omaha Beach. Instead they will face a barrage of feel good propaganda. Hopefully GiaQuinta can hold himself in check. After that the members of the public can talk for 2-3 minutes each, but they have to sign up ahead of time. I wouldn't put it past Wendy to stack the sign up sheet with friendly speakers, so you might want to get there early. They'll be leaving for NSHS at around 7 pm. Actually, I'd recommend writing Ms Kwiatkowski a note and sending it in the mail or giving it to her at the meeting. Written input will be considered in their recommendation.

I can hardly wait.

Social promotion is a lie

Yesterday the NS published an article quoting David Chow, superintendent of the Anderson, Indiana public schools who said that social promotion is a disservice to students. Today the NS followed with an editorial which put the burden on public schools to justify continuing the practice. Social promotion is a lie to the student who thinks he is doing well enough to get a diploma that's not worth the paper it's written on. It's a lie to the taxpayers who think their sacrifice pays for graduates who can meet meet a minimum standard. It's a lie to the business community and colleges who think a high school graduate is prepared for the next step. Most important it's a lie that keeps the money flowing.

The blanket social promotion practiced by districts like FWCS is an admission of failure so obvious that they won't even talk about it. They're afraid of a lower graduation rate if kids are told the truth and held accountable. What's the difference between a drop out and a kid who gets a worthless diploma? None for all practical purposes. But it's proof of a failing system with a gutless school board and administration.

FWCS to participate in designing teacher evaluation process

Nikki Kelly of the JG reported today that FWCS will be one of six Indiana districts working with the IDE to develop a merit based teacher evaluation system. The new system will consider improvement in standardized test scores as part of the evaluation, although how much weight they will get is not clear. Also unclear is what will be used for those teaching subjects which are not covered by standardized test.

In spite of the difficulty and their past resistance to the reforms, participation is a good move for FWCS. Being part of the process, they can influence the product with the participation of teachers and administrators and get better buy in from both. And by working with the IDE they'll get points for cooperation, which will help in keeping SSHS and NSHS from being converted to charters if their scores don't improve this year.

All four major reforms now law

Now that the legislature has passed all of the reform bills for government schools, we can speculate on what their effect will be. These reforms will not "kill public education " as we know it, especially with respect to vouchers and charter schools. The pressure will be mostly on urban districts. Government schools have not been motivated to change by competition as yet, preferring just to circle the wagons and stay the course. Actually the best tool for rapid change would be the strict enforcement of PL 221. But that depends on consistency in the testing program and the willingness of the IDE to step in, both of which are doubtful.

Vouchers - will pay up to $4700 for a student to attend a private school, depending on family income. That would be enough to pay tuition in parochial elementary and middle schools. The catch is that they have to attend a government school for at least a year and kindergarten doesn't count. That makes things awkward. But then what? The choice of private high schools is more limited, so are they then going to go end up having to go to a goverment high school?

Charters - it's hard to start a school, so I don't anticipate a slew of charter start ups. High schools are especially difficult and expensive. And they won't be able to control enrollment. If they end up admitting too many unprepared government school kids, a charter high school is going to have the same problems as a govenment high school. Having $1 access to a closed government school building will help but there will still be initial building outlays for revisions and repairs.

Teacher evaluations - have the potential to improve teacher quality, although slowly, if it's done right. Each district will have to set policies and salary administration factoring in test score data for at least 50% of the evaluation. An annual system based on competence and data instead of seniority can be a big step forward depending on how it's set up.

Collective bargaining - will now be limited to pay and benefits. Contracts last no longer than the state budget cycle, so they are forced to renegotiate every two years. Districts now have the opportunity to redefine their work rules and regain the flexibility they lost under collective bargaining agreements. Reasonable provisions of current contract can be kept so those will probably be used as a starting point. Again the benefits of this change will depend on how districts structure their new policies.

All in all teachers will be working under systems similar to those most professionals see in the private sector. Less job security with opportunity for higher pay. It will take years to see how this all pans out, so don't expect any dramatic change.