2.3 Value Analysis

The section of the Stout article that connects to the issues of school grades is the concept of, “Who should decide issues of school direction and policy?” In the case of this issue, it’s clear that the state and Dr. Bennett feel that they should have control over assessing the overall quality of school performance. I’m inferring that teacher unions wouldn’t feel that their values aren’t equally reflected in the state’s policy.

Values and Ideology:

At this point I’m making multiple connections with the intention of later honing in on one:

• Individualism: I question whether state mandated grades can coexist with teacher autonomy?
• Freedom: How will this policy affect the range of choices open to parents and students? Dr. Bennett has made it clear that one of the major reasons for the school grading system is to create transparency and clarify for parents, who will then use this information to make choices about school attendance. However, this also calls into question how the policy will affect the autonomy of a faculty- my inference being that the stronger the state mandate the less autonomy teachers will feel they have in their classrooms.
• Fraternity: Will competition not result? And if/when it does, won’t it cause a lack of fraternity among schools and even teachers? In contrast, the union opposition obviously represents strong fraternal bonds.
• Efficiency: Does this policy include close monitoring of “output” such as student achievement? Yes!
• I view the school report card as one element of a larger initiative by the state to create  “more market mechanisms into public education in order to increase efficiency.” (121 Values and Ideology). In addition, there is a clear connection between the discussion of business conservatives (page 125) and Bennett’s proposals and what the author calls the “Agenda of the Right” (page 129).

While it’s easier to pin down the values underlying Bennett’s proposals, I’m stuck on connecting the oppositions underlying values. Is it individualism via autonomy that the Unions want to protect? Do the unions simply have a different definition of quality and a different idea of efficiency?

1.7 Who are the stakeholders?

The most obvious stakeholders are the two major Indiana Teacher's Unions. The Indiana State Teacher's Association link is http://www.ista-in.org/ . The ISTA's president Nathan Schnellenberger has vigorously opposed many of Dr. Bennett's proposals. In addition, Rick Muir, the president of the Indiana Federation of Teachers, has publically oppossed many of Dr. Bennett's measures (http://in.aft.org/). Under 1.5 the link to the Indiana Business Journal highlights the friction between the stakeholders. The article is general and  I'm currently researching for comments specific to my issue.

1.5 Links to my Issue

The following link (which I hope works, not sure if I did this right!) goes to a May 5th indystar article on the topic of school grading. The ensuing blog is quite interesting.
http://iphone.indystar.com/posts/22936

As far as I know, and I need to do a lot more research, the school grading system was initially part of Dr. Bennett's attempt to meet federal criteria for Race to the Top. This article, from the Indianapoli Business Journal, highlights the rift between the teachers unions, primarily ISTA, and Dr. Bennett.

http://www.ibj.com/article?articleId=19326


This is the link to the entire Inagural State of Education Address, which I was fortunate to be able to actually attend.
http://www.wfyi.org/liveVideo/DOEVideo.asp

It's becoming apparent to me that Dr. Bennett is at least partially modeling this system after the current system in Florida. This link directs you to the Florida Department of Ed. web-site.
http://schoolgrades.fldoe.org/

1.5 Issue Link - Issue Summary Kates

Module 1.5 Issue Description

Issue: One of Dr. Bennett's (Indiana Superintendent of Instruction) many proposals is the implementation of an A through F report card system for assessing school achievement.


Currently school performance under Public Law 221 works like this:

Public Law 221 (P.L. 221) is Indiana's comprehensive accountability system for K-12 education. Passed by the Indiana General Assembly in 1999 – prior to the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, the law aimed to establish major educational reform and accountability statewide. To measure progress, P.L. 221 places Indiana schools into one of five categories based upon student pass rates on state ISTEP+ tests: Exemplary Progress, Commendable Progress, Academic Progress, Academic Watch or Academic Probation.

The following links take you directly to the IDOE school accountability page.

http://www.doe.in.gov/pl221/

For more info. on PL221 and No Child Left Behind: http://www.doe.in.gov/communications/schoolaccountability.html

In the inagural state of education address at Creston Middle School, Dr. Bennett said, "Everyone knows what letter grades mean, so parents and other concerned citizens will be able to both celebrate school success and hold schools accountable."

So what is the conflict here: In summary, many school leaders, teachers, and community members feel that the grading system's transparency will unfairly penalize marginalized schools and districts. On the other hand, proponents of the school grades feel that they will serve as a needed accountability measure that the community can comprehend.