Chalkbeat

How did Indiana students do on a revised ILEARN this year?

2026-08-11T17:05:25+00:00

Sign up for Chalkbeat Indiana’s free daily newsletter to keep up with Indianapolis Public Schools, Marion County’s township districts, and statewide education news.

Around 42% of Indiana students were proficient in English language arts and 43% were proficient in math in 2026, according to state testing data released Tuesday.

While pass rates on the state test, the ILEARN, were similar to scores from past years, education officials cautioned against making comparisons, because there have been significant changes to state standards and to the test itself in recent years. The 2025-26 school year was the first in which all students took three ILEARN checkpoints throughout the year, followed by a shorter, end-of-year test.

The change marks another chapter for the ILEARN, which replaced the ISTEP in 2019, and which was canceled in 2020 during the pandemic.

From 2021 to 2025, Indiana students’ proficiency in English language arts on the ILEARN remained essentially flat, while math proficiency increased around five percentage points.

Beginning this year, the new ILEARN scores — along with SAT and IREAD scores — will be a factor in the A-F grades that schools receive. Officials also presented IREAD and SAT scores at the Tuesday meeting of the State Board of Education.

The ILEARN is administered in grades 3-8. The state counts proficiency rates as students who scored proficient or above proficient on the test.

In 2026, just over half of Indiana third and fourth graders were proficient on the math section of the ILEARN. That rate declined in middle school grades, with around 34% of eighth graders passing the math section.

Around 41% of third graders were proficient in English this year. That share remained consistent throughout grades 4-7, increasing slightly to 44% for eighth grade.

“The difference is in math, that if you have cracks in your foundation early, the ripple effect that that has on all other skills is harder and harder to recover from,” said Ana Shults, the Indiana Department Of Education’s chief academic officer, about the difference in the subject score trends.

A breakdown of the scores by student groups also revealed persistent gaps in proficiency.

For example, just 29% of students who received subsidized meals — a federal measure of poverty — scored proficient in English, compared with 53% of students who didn’t.

The state did not make school-level ILEARN data available on Tuesday, but officials did not say why. The state board approved new passing scores for the ILEARN at the meeting.

Secretary of Education Katie Jenner said the test aligns well with the National Assessment of Educational Progress, a test administered by the federal government.

“We have a very tough assessment, tough standards,” Jenner said.

Officials: ILEARN scores not only measure of knowledge

Education officials framed both the ILEARN and the SAT as measures of a student’s progress toward college readiness. But that might not be the only measure of success for all students, they said.

“We’ve talked to many employers, we’ve talked to the military. The SAT is not a score that they necessarily have interest in,” said Paul Ketcham, assistant secretary of education.

Both tests will inform the state’s new A-F grades for schools, with elementary and middle school students assigned points for both growth and proficiency rates in ILEARN English/language arts and math.

SAT proficiency is a standalone indicator worth 10% of a school’s grade, but more weight is given to the share of students earning the state’s new diploma seals.

All Indiana juniors take the SAT, which serves as the state’s high school assessment to meet federal requirements.

This year, 52% of students met the college-ready benchmark in reading and writing on the SAT, and 26% of students did so in math. Another 9% were approaching the benchmark in reading and writing, and 22% were approaching the benchmark in math.

52% of students scored below the college-ready benchmark in math, and 39% scored below the benchmark in reading and writing.

Aleksandra Appleton covers Indiana education policy and writes about K-12 schools across the state. Contact her at aappleton@chalkbeat.org.

New A-F grades are coming to Indiana schools. Here’s how they will be calculated.

2026-03-04T18:31:38+00:00

Sign up for Chalkbeat Indiana’s free daily newsletter to keep up with Indianapolis Public Schools, Marion County’s township districts, and statewide education news.

Indiana has approved a new system to assign A-F letter grades to schools for the first time since 2018, giving students points for passing state tests — and additional points for passing other tests, like the Classic Learning Test, an alternative college entrance exam embraced by conservatives, according to a final draft of the grading metric presented Wednesday.

The system gives students points for state test scores in reading and math, according to the presentation to the State Board of Education, and assigns additional points for other skills, like work ethic as measured by attendance, diploma attainment, and work-based learning credentials. Schools are assigned a grade on an A-F scale based on the average of their students’ points.

The new grading system could form the basis for further monumental shifts in Indiana education. The state has proposed to use the new system as the sole measure of accountability in its request for federal flexibility, in order to create streamlined standards for schools. The work on the flexibility request was paused as the state “worked through the final touches on the accountability model,” Secretary of Education Katie Jenner said, but will be unpaused shortly.

The grades could also factor into the shared accountability system that the new Indianapolis Public Education Corporation is charged with creating, and which could lead to school closures.

The system has been in development since early last summer after new state laws required the department to create a new grading metric. The state has not issued grades to schools since 2018, due to a new testing model, the pandemic, and then a brief shift to a school dashboard model. The State Board of Education was initially expected to adopt the new grading system in December, but the timeline was delayed.

“This has been a long time coming,” said Secretary of Education Katie Jenner at the Wednesday meeting, adding that feedback on the model had come from educators, families, and business and industry leaders.

Multiple rounds of public feedback informed the process, department officials said, resulting in several changes from the second draft to the final model presented on Wednesday.

One major change from the second draft gives students more points for reaching proficiency in reading and math. Previous drafts had given equal weight to students who demonstrated academic progress — but this gave parents the impression that their students were doing better than they really were, said Ron Sandlin, chief innovation officer at the Indiana Department of Education.

High school success indicators can include the Classic Learning Test

Two other changes in the final draft were made to align Indiana with federal accountability standards as the state pursues its flexibility waiver from the federal Department of Education. First, graduation rate will now become a standalone indicator worth 10% of a school’s grade 12 rating. Schools above 95% will earn the full 100 points for the metric.

Second, proficiency on the SAT, or an alternative assessment for students with disabilities called the I AM will become a standalone indicator worth 10% of a school’s grade 12 rating, rather than an optional success indicator. Schools with 60% or more students reaching SAT proficiency will earn the full 100 points for the metric.

The bulk of a school’s grade 12 letter grade will come from the number of students who earn an Indiana diploma, honors seal, or honors plus seal, as well as the number who pass a list of other skills and tests. The state’s new diploma requirements go into effect for the class of 2029.

Because the SAT will become a standalone indicator in the model, the department has added both the ACT and the Classic Learning Test to the list of ways that students can earn additional points that indicate success in English and math.

The Classic Learning Test, or CLT, is an alternative test that assesses reading, writing, and math skills using both religious and secular texts from Western historical writers. The test, which has been linked to the conservative education movement, is gaining ground: Indiana lawmakers just passed a new law requiring state universities to consider CLT scores to the same extent they consider the SAT or ACT for admission.

Other changes to the final model include a new indicator in middle school for students who complete a graduation plan, as well as consideration for English learner students who take the WIDA, which assesses English listening, speaking, and reading and writing skills.

Schools are expected to receive their initial grades by December. The first round of grades will include some runway as schools also implement new diploma requirements and testing checkpoints: To earn an A, they must receive a minimum of 85 points, for example.

After the initial grades, the scale will more closely resemble a traditional A-F grading system, with an A beginning at 90 points.

Aleksandra Appleton covers Indiana education policy and writes about K-12 schools across the state. Contact her at aappleton@chalkbeat.org.

IPS and charters are preparing for big changes. A new school rating system could be one of them.

2025-11-10T12:00:00+00:00

Sign up for Chalkbeat Indiana’s free daily newsletter to keep up with Indianapolis Public Schools, Marion County’s township districts, and statewide education news.

It’s been seven years since Indianapolis schools, and schools around the state, have received a rating for school performance.

In that time, dozens of charters have closed, opened, or taken control of IPS schools. Indianapolis Public Schools, where enrollment is declining, has also closed several schools.

Now, the state has created the Indianapolis Local Education Alliance to rethink the Indianapolis school landscape. And while supporters of charters and IPS schools want different things from the ILEA, one idea has garnered support from both sides: the need for a universal accountability system.

That system could highlight schools in need of intervention, advocates say, and provide important information to parents as they select schools for their children. And in a school landscape that had thousands more seats than students last school year, it could also influence which schools close or merge.

What that rating system would look like — and whether it would simply mirror the state’s new A-F school ratings system to be finalized in December — is unclear. But it could also help clarify which schools are better serving students, during a period when finger-pointing between advocates of traditional public schools and charters has sometimes gotten ugly. A universal rating system could put all schools on the same playing field.

If the ILEA recommends creating such a system to the state legislature, there will be big questions about what it should look like. How should it account for demographics? What should it measure?

The ILEA is due to share its recommendations on how charters and IPS can share transportation and building resources to lawmakers by the end of December. But the law that established the group also allows it to make recommendations on “uniform school performance frameworks” — which member Barato Britt said the group is considering.

“There is at least mutual agreement that trying to get to a framework that does evaluate and hold all of our public schools to similar levels of accountability for performance is, I think, a north star,” he said.

Controlling for school demographics in ratings is complex

Designing a universal accountability system would be a tall order.

There would be thorny questions of who would choose the metrics, and whether those metrics would culminate in a single school rating. There would also be questions about whether those ratings would lead to consequences, like closure recommendations, and what power the district or charter authorizers would be giving up in the process.

One overarching challenge would be how to design a system that fairly controls for differences in demographics and the challenges faced by each school.

Consider two Indianapolis charter schools.

At Liberty Grove at Elder Diggs School 42, all students qualified for free or reduced-price meals, one measure of family income, according to state enrollment records from last school year. About 16% were English language learners. Just 4.5% of its students reached proficiency in both English and math on the state’s ILEARN exam last year.

Two miles away at Herron Prep, roughly 36% receive free or reduced-price meals. Just 5% of students were English language learners. Its combined proficiency rate: roughly 39%.

So what is a fair way to rate these schools that accounts for their different demographics without downplaying academic results?

There are at least three ways that a school rating model can account for those differences, said Chris Domaleski, executive director of the Center for Assessment, which provides support for districts on assessment and accountability.

One is by measuring growth on test scores rather than total proficiency. This can measure a school based on how well its students are progressing year over year, rather than judging a school that historically lags behind its peers based on overall proficiency.

Another strategy is to factor in the performance of student subgroups, he said, such as those from low-income backgrounds. That could also measure how well schools are doing in serving certain populations, rather than judging the school’s performance as a whole.

Finally, a framework can also look at measure improvements over time in non-academic areas, such as chronic absenteeism.

Any rating system should focus on the success of each student subgroup to ensure schools are serving all types of students, said Jasmin Shaheed-Young, the CEO of RISE Indy, a nonprofit with ties to school choice advocates that works in district and charter schools. In the same vein, it should also take into account suspension and expulsion rates, she said.

But a new framework should not immediately dictate which schools would close, she said.

“Before we go directly to closure, we want to stop to figure out intervention, and we also want partnership,” she said. “We want all schools to be able to work together to ultimately serve best practices and consolidate ideas.”

For Morrise Harbour, founder of the Liberty Grove charter school, year-over-year improvement on a test is a more important metric on his school’s success, rather than raw scores alone.

“Comparing yourself to yourself is probably the best — one of the more efficient — ways to really see how effective a school is,” he said.

To him, other important metrics include attendance rate and the retention of students and staff. But what’s less clear to him is how important each of these factors might be in determining a final school rating.

“What weighs more in this report card as opposed to others?” he said. “Does attendance weigh more than proficiency, or does growth weigh more than proficiency?”

Could Indianapolis schools adopt a state rating system?

The state’s previous school ratings measured the number of students passing state assessments, year-over-year growth on state tests, graduation rates, and the number of students taking college-level courses.

The new state school rating system, which the State Board of Education will finalize in December, could be more comprehensive. It would give schools points for elementary school students who are not proficient on a state exam but are approaching proficiency, for example. It would grant extra points for students who meet attendance targets, or for English language learners who are reaching language proficiency.

In high school, the proposed new system would also give extra points for students who complete college and career coursework or 150 hours of work-based learning.

But Shaheed-Young said Indianapolis should have its own framework that considers student subgroup performance, given the diversity of student enrollment in IPS and charters.

Britt, the Indianapolis Local Education Alliance member, said he believes the community can agree on a common set of data points that will provide “as much of an apples-to-apples comparison as possible.”

“I just have to believe there is a way we can evaluate schools equitably, meaningfully, and in a way that will ... further inform parents in their decision-making,” he said.

Amelia Pak-Harvey covers Indianapolis and Lawrence Township schools for Chalkbeat Indiana. Contact Amelia at apak-harvey@chalkbeat.org.

Indiana submits federal funding flexibility request to Trump administration

2025-10-20T20:29:43+00:00

Sign up for Chalkbeat Indiana’s free daily newsletter to keep up with Indianapolis Public Schools, Marion County’s township districts, and statewide education news.

Indiana has submitted its plan to use hundreds of millions of dollars in federal education funds with fewer restrictions to the U.S. Department of Education, state officials said Monday.

If approved, the plan would allow Indiana to merge several federal Title programs — funds currently earmarked for certain programs and groups of students — into a block grant. The state would then be able to spend that block grant on other priorities permissible under the Every Student Succeeds Act, the main federal K-12 law.

The controversial proposal, which the state submitted Friday, would also allow districts to spend their federal funding in the same way.

Doing so would reduce the administrative burden associated with federal funding, the state has said, and free up more staff to work directly with students. But advocates have expressed concern that the plan would cut funding for certain groups of students, like English learners and rural students.

Other aspects of the plan would substitute federal accountability standards for the state’s A-F school accountability model — the latest version of which is currently in development.

The plan would also redirect a fund meant for low-performing schools to other nearby schools, even if those schools are not low-performing.

This aspect of the plan has drawn criticism from education advocates who say that students who can’t transfer to another school would be hurt by the loss of School Improvement Grants. The state has denied that redirecting the funds would amount to abandoning low-performing schools.

The priorities of the plan as submitted are largely unchanged from the first draft the state presented in July.

Indiana’s proposal is similar to waiver proposals submitted by Iowa and Oklahoma after a call by the Trump administration to “return education to states.” Indiana officials have heeded that call.

“Indiana continues to lead the nation in education and innovation,” Gov. Mike Braun said in a statement Monday. “We can best support Hoosier students when we return education to the states, empower parents with high-quality educational options, get red tape out of the way for educators, and focus on improvement for every student.”

The U.S. Department of Education has 120 days to respond to Indiana’s request, according to the state. If approved, the plan would go into effect for the 2026-27 school year.

Aleksandra Appleton covers Indiana education policy and writes about K-12 schools across the state. Contact her at aappleton@chalkbeat.org.

Indiana is a step closer to a new grading system for schools. Here’s the latest draft.

2025-10-15T18:30:19+00:00

Sign up for Chalkbeat Indiana’s free daily newsletter to keep up with Indianapolis Public Schools, Marion County’s township districts, and statewide education news.

State education leaders want to measure schools by what students achieve, not punish schools for what students don’t. And they want to grade schools on more than test scores.

A second draft of an accountability system for Indiana schools was presented to the State Board of Education by Indiana Department of Education officials on Wednesday. The board has until the end of 2025 to approve the new framework, per state law, and is expected to vote on a new framework at its Dec. 10 meeting. Schools would receive grades no later than December 2026.

The proposed grading system assigns points to students based on their academic mastery, measured through test scores, and gives them additional points for other knowledge, skills, and experiences that state education leaders say students need for future success. That includes earning workforce credentials and skills like work ethic and communication and collaboration.

Each student’s overall score is then averaged with other students for a school’s overall grade. Schools are not docked additional points for students who don’t pass tests or master specific skills. Schools receive a letter grade based on a scale of zero to 100 points, with 90 points and above graded as an A and 59 and below as an F.

The blend of academics and skills in the proposed accountability model is the biggest change from previous models, and one that board members and Indiana’s education chief defended during the meeting, saying there are some people who want Indiana to focus just on academic mastery.

“There are other things that matter as well, and this is representative of what we’re really driving towards,” said Katie Jenner, Indiana secretary of education.

She said the new model would prioritize academic mastery and skill development, and stressed that “academic mastery, assessment and accountability matter in Indiana, regardless of what the federal government does or does not do.”

“For people in our country who think that if we have all humans take a test and if they pass or not that determines their success, you are fooling yourself because there are leaders in seats all over our country who probably couldn’t pass the test,” Jenner said. “We have to see the full human picture.”

School grading framework focuses on individual students

Indiana schools have not been graded since 2018 due to changes in state testing and the pandemic. In 2022, Indiana created the Graduates Prepared to Succeed dashboard that includes a profile of each school, but not a single grade. But some families found it too complex. So officials also want the new accountability system to be transparent and easier for people to understand.

By assigning scores to each student first, the proposal incentivizes schools to work with individual students to increase their school grade, instead of focusing on increasing the average of one metric, said Ron Sandlin, chief innovation officer for the state education department, who presented the draft to the board on Wednesday.

That approach to maximizing outcomes for every individual student is a “fundamental shift,” he said.

Overall, the second draft of the accountability model is largely similar to the first draft officials presented to the state board in June. Students who are proficient in a subject on a state exam earn points, but so do students who are approaching proficient – just a lower amount.

However, it does include additional opportunities for students to earn points based on work that schools are already doing to help students who are not reaching milestones.

For example, a student who is deemed to not be where they should be academically in ninth grade, but is able to get back on track in 10th grade would earn points to reflect the work the student and school did. Points are also earned for students who are identified at risk for not passing IREAD as second graders, but pass the test in third grade.

The proposal awards points for the readiness seals in the new high school diplomas. But it also includes a way for students to earn points for the old high school diplomas, as schools transition students from one diploma format to the other.

State education board member Kristin Rentschler said she works with students on a daily basis as a social studies teacher, and while school accountability frameworks are not something students think about, this draft would shift the conversation that educators have with students.

Specifically, it would give hope to students who struggle with test taking because educators can say “that’s not the only thing you are being measured on kiddo,” Rentschler said.

Next up is a public comment period before the final draft in December. An online public comment period is now open through Nov. 17. A public hearing for feedback will be held at 11 a.m. on Nov. 17 in the history reference room at the Indiana State Library, 315 W. Ohio St. in Indianapolis.

MJ Slaby oversees Chalkbeat Indiana’s coverage as bureau chief. Contact MJ at mslaby@chalkbeat.org.

Lawmakers are considering bringing A-F grades for schools back. Here’s why.

2025-01-29T20:17:28+00:00

Sign up for Chalkbeat Indiana’s free daily newsletter to keep up with Indianapolis Public Schools, Marion County’s township districts, and statewide education news.

Indiana’s A-F grading system for schools could be on its way back.

House Bill 1498, authored by GOP Rep. Bob Behning, the chair of the House Education Committee, would require the Department of Education to develop a new A-F grading methodology for schools, based on scores on the third grading reading and state summative assessments — the IREAD and ILEARN. The grading system would also have to take into account high school graduation rates, diploma attainment, and other relevant factors.

The department would need to develop the new metric by December 2025 and issue grades to public and accredited private schools by December 2026.

Though Indiana has long had state requirements to issue letter grades to schools, no grades have been issued since 2018 as the state first transitioned to a new statewide assessment, then dealt with the pandemic in 2020, and finally, unveiled its new Graduates Prepared to Succeed (GPS) profiles of each school’s performance in 2022.

Schools would once again receive “null” grades for the 2024-25 school year.

In testimony Wednesday before the House Education Committee passed the bill unanimously, Secretary of Education Katie Jenner acknowledged that she advocated in 2023 for the state to begin to move away from the A-F grading system in favor of the new GPS dashboard. This system includes information about each school’s test scores, attendance, and more.

Officials’ hope was that the dashboard would provide a comprehensive overview of schools that had been missing from a single letter grade. But Jenner said some parents reported that the dashboard was too complex.

“Full disclosure, we are hearing from people who say ‘I just want to know how my school is doing,’” Jenner said.

But the return of letter grades would revive criticism that the grades rely too much on test scores to determine a school’s performance.

An amendment to the bill would require the primary indicator of performance for elementary and middle schools to be test scores. For high schools, the grades would include other factors, like experiential learning and credential opportunities, Jenner said. The State Board of Education discussed a potential framework for new letter grades at its January meeting.

“Just as students aren’t a single letter grade, neither are schools,” said David Marcotte, executive director of the Indiana Urban Schools Association, which took a neutral position on Behning’s bill. “For the sake of simplicity, we go with a single letter grade, but sometimes we lose out on the accuracy of reflecting the full school.”

Rep. Ed Delaney, a Democrat, said letter grades are not useful and lead to unnecessary jockeying between schools. Instead, Delaney said he’d like to see two grade bands indicating whether a school needs intervention or not, presented alongside test score data.

“Then parents could look and see, does my school need intervention or not, and then how are the kids doing on IREAD, and then decide if that school is good enough for then,” Delaney said.

GOP Rep. Becky Cash also suggested that the information on the GPS dashboard could be simplified. And other lawmakers asked that the state pick an accountability metric and keep to it.

“I fear we’ve got a sense of whiplash where the way we measure school performance is changing, it seems like, every year,” said Rep. Andrew Ireland, a Republican. “Let’s get it done and then stick with the system for years at a time because I really don’t think it’s very accessible for parents if we keep changing the metrics we’re using.”

HB 1498 now heads to a full House vote.

Aleksandra Appleton covers Indiana education policy and writes about K-12 schools across the state. Contact her at aappleton@chalkbeat.org.

After repealing consequences for failing schools, Indiana will revisit A-F grades

2021-05-11T18:12:15+00:00

Prompted by an end to state takeovers and other consequences for low performance, Indiana schools likely will also see a change in how the state measures their success.

Under a new law, district schools with poor A-F state grades no longer face the threat of state seizure or the steps that precede it, such as replacing personnel or working with outside experts. Instead, the law requires that the State Board of Education create a public data dashboard that highlights certain measures of school performance, such as graduation or attendance rates.

The change represents a shift in philosophy for the state, from holding schools accountable for providing a quality education by using the threat of intervention. Instead, the state will prioritize transparency. And the movement is expected to trickle down to affect how A-F grades themselves are calculated.

“It’s a shift in mindset,” said State Board of Education General Counsel Chad Ranney. “I think it will certainly influence the final product the board will put out.”

For example, the board may grade different aspects of a school’s performance, such as its graduation rate or attendance, in addition to an overall grade. That could make it easier for parents to compare schools on a more detailed level, Ranney said.

The new statute also encourages board members to add test scores for science and social studies to the formula, which currently relies heavily on scores for English and math. But board members will have to balance expanding the formula to better capture a school’s performance with making it too complicated and difficult to understand.

“I think we have been less than honest in terms of the way we’ve computed this over time,” House education leader Bob Behning, R-Indianapolis, said in February, asserting that the dashboard could give the community better insight. “Let’s be honest about performance.”

With the new law going into effect this summer, Ranney said the board will revisit A-F grades in the “coming months.” There’s no set timeline and little pressure to rush because lawmakers already exempted schools from 2020-21 A-F grades after educators raised concerns that COVID-19 school closures would cause standardized test scores to drop. The law also gives the board until 2024 to build the data dashboard.

While many options are still on the table, lawmakers did not leave room for the board to scrap the A-F system entirely. Ranney said continuing to use the familiar A-F ratings — as the state has since 2011 — supports the measure’s purpose, which is to offer parents and community members an easily understood assessment of how schools are doing.

Test scores will also remain in the formula, Ranney said, although what impact they will have on the overall grade is “still very much a question.”

Board members were already rethinking state takeover and planning to overhaul A-F grades before the new law passed. In January 2020, the board ended the state’s control at the four remaining takeover schools with little fanfare and no evaluation of whether the efforts were successful. (The new law does not affect district takeovers in Gary and Muncie, which were triggered by finances rather than academics.)

And in November 2020, members considered a new framework for A-F grades, which included incorporating science and social studies scores, adding student attendance, and changing the weight behind graduation rates. However, changes were put on hold as lawmakers started discussing the accountability system during the legislative session.

Indiana COVID infection rates are rising. Here’s how it could affect schools reopening.

2020-07-15T23:07:53+00:00

Indiana leaders said Wednesday that schools can safely open next month despite the rising number of COVID-19 cases statewide. But they may reassess if the proportion of people testing positive for the virus exceeds 10%.

The rising infection rate and hospitalizations in Indiana have stalled state reopening plans and fueled questions as to whether schools can safely resume in person in late July or early August. Growing concern prompted the Indiana State Teachers Association to ask Gov. Eric Holcomb to mandate the use of masks for grades 6-12 in schools statewide — an idea that Holcomb said Wednesday he would consider.

So far, the state has left decisions surrounding reopening up to local school districts and health departments. But when asked by Chalkbeat where the state would draw the line, Health Commissioner Kristina Box said the health department may make “stronger recommendations” to schools if Indiana’s seven-day average test positivity rate reaches 10% to 15% — a higher, less strict threshold than some other states have set.

“We have not set on a particular metric for the schools that you have to be at this in your county in order to go back to school,” Box said during the weekly press conference. “We’re hoping not to have to do that. But that’s something that we’ve been talking about.”

In New York, schools will not reopen if the surrounding region’s positive test rate rises above 5% over a two-week period, Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced Monday. And schools could close later in August if it spikes above 9%. The state currently has positive test rates below 2%.

In general, public health experts say to control the spread of the virus, communities need positive test rates of less than 10%. Ideally, that rate would stay under 3%. The World Health Organization recommends state economies to reopen only if their positivity rates are below 5% for at least two weeks.

As of Saturday, Indiana’s positivity rate reached 7.1%, according to state data — an increase from a low of about 4% last month. At its peak in April, around 20% of people in the state who were tested for COVID-19 tested positive.

Two Marion County districts have pushed back their start dates while one, Washington Township, will start the year with only virtual classes.

Holcomb said during a press conference Wednesday he supports those districts’ decisions. He said he doesn’t support withholding funding from schools choosing a virtual option, Both President Donald Trump and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos have threatened to do so recently, although neither has the authority to do so without congressional approval.

“I did just the opposite,” said Holcomb, who announced last month the state would not cut funding for K-12 education despite plummeting revenues. “We’ve worked our tails off around here to make sure that schools are fully funded.”

Indiana releases more data on 2019 A-F grades — with new insight into student growth

2020-05-18T21:40:56+00:00

Chalkbeat has obtained more detailed information about how schools are educating students, months after 2019 A-F grades were criticized for holding little meaning due to a two-year hold harmless exemption that shielded schools from falling grades.

The unredacted A-F grades, released by the state after a public record request, include schools’ growth scores, which offer new insight into whether they are helping students catch up to grade level. The growth scores, searchable in the database below, measure students based on how much they learn in a year compared to their peers. They give potentially crucial information in a year when state standardized tests were canceled and students will miss months of in-person instruction in light of the coronavirus pandemic.

“For us, the growth is critically important,” said Jeff Butts, superintendent of Wayne Township Schools. “It’s something that we analyze on a much deeper level.”

Many experts and advocates argue that growth scores, which make up one piece of a school’s state grade, are a better way to judge whether schools are serving students well than passing rates on tests because they capture gains at schools where children are far behind when they enroll.

In districts like Wayne, where mobility and poverty are high, student test scores are driven by factors teachers cannot control, Butts said. Growth data offers better insight, he said, because students who do not pass the state’s ILEARN exam can still score well if they show improvement.

The state department of education didn’t initially release growth scores when A-F grades were released in March, saying at the time that doing so would “undermine the hold harmless.” This year, the state protected A-F grades from falling because of low passing rates on a new, more difficult test.

Because of that, A-F grades looked rosier this year than how schools actually performed on tests. With the protection in place, about 32% of schools received top marks, and about 11% got the lowest grades.

But more than 1,000 schools — more than half statewide — would have earned a lower grade without the hold harmless, the data show. Statewide, 14% of schools would have earned A grades while about 33% of schools would have earned D or F grades.

Many educators argue that the declining grades would be a reflection of the changing test rather than an accurate representation of student’s knowledge or teacher’s success — a common critique of Indiana’s accountability system.

“A school isn’t a B one day and then suddenly they’re an F, that’s not realistic,” said Krista Stockman, a spokeswoman for Fort Wayne Community Schools, where several schools would have seen their grades fall if not for the hold-harmless provision. “This isn’t something that we spent a lot of time doing an autopsy on.”

Unlike A-F grades themselves, growth scores are not easy for the public to understand, and it’s difficult to draw any statewide conclusions about growth. But education leaders, observers, and policymakers rely on them to judge how schools are doing comparatively. In Indianapolis Public Schools, for example, officials typically use growth as a factor in assessing which schools are struggling the most.

Like a number of states, Indiana uses a hybrid formula for growth, known as “growth to proficiency,” that also accounts for how close students are to meeting state standards. This approach favors schools with students who enter at higher levels, which also corresponds to family income. Schools with low proficiency, however, can still earn top marks on growth.

“I would hesitate to say we should keep data like this in the closet,” said Rep. Bob Behning, House Education Committee chairman. “I think we should be as transparent as possible and let parents make the decision… I think you’d want to know why [one] school was able to do so much better than [another] school.”

Parents should be entitled to full information, said Justin Ohlemiller, executive director of Stand for Children Indiana, a parent organizing group that often shows parents state letter grades for their own schools.

“Never have we had a parent tell us, ‘Hey, it’s better if the system kept information from us,’” said Ohlemiller. As his organization has spoken to parents during the coronavirus crisis, one of the top issues they bring up is whether their children will be behind because they missed school.

“Now is definitely a time where our system needs to provide more transparency, more data,” he said, “because parents are hungry for it.”

Indiana officials ultimately decided to release the information after further discussion, which was delayed because of the coronavirus pandemic, said education department spokesperson Adam Baker.

“It is never our objective to keep from the public, let alone the media, that which helps tell a more complete story of Indiana education,” Baker wrote in an email to Chalkbeat.

Find your school’s 2019 growth score and projected A-F grade in our database below. Download the full data here.

School	Growth Points Grades 4-8	Growth Points Grades 10-12	Projected Grade	"Hold Harmless" Grade
Adams Central Middle School (Adams Central Community Schools)	96.5		C	A
Adams Central Elementary School (Adams Central Community Schools)	88		C	C
Adams Central High School (Adams Central Community Schools)		101.2	A	A
Bellmont Senior High School (North Adams Community Schools)		99.3	A	A
Bellmont Middle School (North Adams Community Schools)	91.7		D	B
Bellmont Elementary (North Adams Community Schools)	77.6		F	C
South Adams Middle School (South Adams Schools)	95.1		C	B
South Adams High School (South Adams Schools)		92.6	B	A
South Adams Elementary School (South Adams Schools)	90.4		C	A
Aboite Elementary School (M S D Southwest Allen County Schls)	83.2		C	B
Whispering Meadow Elementary Sch (M S D Southwest Allen County Schls)	69.2		F	C
Homestead Senior High School (M S D Southwest Allen County Schls)		117	A	A
Summit Middle School (M S D Southwest Allen County Schls)	94.4		C	A
Lafayette Meadow School (M S D Southwest Allen County Schls)	76.1		D	B
Woodside Middle School (M S D Southwest Allen County Schls)	86.3		D	A
Haverhill Elementary School (M S D Southwest Allen County Schls)	80		D	D
Deer Ridge Elementary (M S D Southwest Allen County Schls)	88.6		C	B
Covington Elementary School (M S D Southwest Allen County Schls)	76.6		F	B
Arcola School (Northwest Allen County Schools)	80.8		D	B
Maple Creek Middle School (Northwest Allen County Schools)	100.6		B	A
Hickory Center Elementary School (Northwest Allen County Schools)	79.7		D	C
Huntertown Elementary School (Northwest Allen County Schools)	94.3		C	C
Carroll Middle School (Northwest Allen County Schools)	101.3		C	B
Carroll High School (Northwest Allen County Schools)		118.3	A	A
Perry Hill Elementary School (Northwest Allen County Schools)	100.8		B	A
Oak View Elementary School (Northwest Allen County Schools)	93.2		B	B
Cedar Canyon Elementary School (Northwest Allen County Schools)	102.4		B	B
Eel River Elementary School (Northwest Allen County Schools)	95.2		C	B
North Side High School (Fort Wayne Community Schools)		94.6	C	B
R Nelson Snider High School (Fort Wayne Community Schools)		76.9	B	B
South Side High School (Fort Wayne Community Schools)		79.1	C	C
Blackhawk Middle School (Fort Wayne Community Schools)	90.1		D	C
Jeff H Towles Intermediate School (Fort Wayne Community Schools)	86.9		D	C
Jefferson Middle School (Fort Wayne Community Schools)	84.1		D	C
Kekionga Middle School (Fort Wayne Community Schools)	74.8		F	D
Lakeside Middle School (Fort Wayne Community Schools)	79.1		F	C
Lane Middle School (Fort Wayne Community Schools)	77.8		F	D
Memorial Park Middle School (Fort Wayne Community Schools)	83		D	B
Miami Middle School (Fort Wayne Community Schools)	77.5		F	D
Northwood Middle School (Fort Wayne Community Schools)	78.3		F	D
Portage Middle School (Fort Wayne Community Schools)	62.2		F	D
Weisser Park Elementary School (Fort Wayne Community Schools)	100.9		C	B
Fairfield Elementary School (Fort Wayne Community Schools)	93.5		F	B
Merle J Abbett Elementary School (Fort Wayne Community Schools)	78.3		F	F
Adams Elementary School (Fort Wayne Community Schools)	95.7		F	B
Bloomingdale Elementary School (Fort Wayne Community Schools)	73.7		F	F
Bunche Elementary School (Fort Wayne Community Schools)	86.9		D	C
Brentwood Elementary School (Fort Wayne Community Schools)	84.3		F	B
Fred H Croninger Elementary School (Fort Wayne Community Schools)	103		B	A
Forest Park Elementary School (Fort Wayne Community Schools)	80.5		F	C
Franke Park Elementary School (Fort Wayne Community Schools)	103.9		C	C
Glenwood Park Elementary School (Fort Wayne Community Schools)	115.3		B	B
J Wilbur Haley Elementary School (Fort Wayne Community Schools)	95.9		D	C
Wayne High School (Fort Wayne Community Schools)		79.4	B	B
Harrison Hill Elementary School (Fort Wayne Community Schools)	88.6		D	C
Mabel K Holland Elementary School (Fort Wayne Community Schools)	106.1		B	A
Indian Village Elementary School (Fort Wayne Community Schools)	88.8		D	C
John S Irwin Elementary School (Fort Wayne Community Schools)	74.2		F	C
Lindley Elementary School (Fort Wayne Community Schools)	89.1		D	C
Maplewood Elementary School (Fort Wayne Community Schools)	77.9		F	C
Willard Shambaugh Elementary Sch (Fort Wayne Community Schools)	104.8		C	C
Northcrest Elementary School (Fort Wayne Community Schools)	97.7		D	C
Northrop High School (Fort Wayne Community Schools)		83.9	B	B
Francis M Price Elementary School (Fort Wayne Community Schools)	99.3		C	B
Saint Joseph Central School (Fort Wayne Community Schools)	95.4		C	B
Robert C Harris Elementary School (Fort Wayne Community Schools)	71.2		F	B
Shawnee Middle School (Fort Wayne Community Schools)	73.1		F	D
Whitney M Young Early Childhood (Fort Wayne Community Schools)	100.9		C	B
Levan R Scott Academy (Fort Wayne Community Schools)	89		F	F
South Wayne Elementary School (Fort Wayne Community Schools)	80		F	C
Study Elementary School (Fort Wayne Community Schools)	94.4		D	D
Washington Elementary School (Fort Wayne Community Schools)	88.7		D	B
Washington Center Elementary Sch (Fort Wayne Community Schools)	80.7		D	B
Lincoln Elementary School (Fort Wayne Community Schools)	91.1		D	B
Waynedale Elementary School (Fort Wayne Community Schools)	94.9		D	D
Arlington Elementary School (Fort Wayne Community Schools)	109.4		C	B
Prince Chapman Academy (East Allen County Schools)	89.9		F	D
Leo Junior/Senior High School (East Allen County Schools)	84.1	116.6	B	A
Leo Elementary School (East Allen County Schools)	88.9		B	A
Heritage Jr/Sr High School (East Allen County Schools)	78.3	96.9	B	B
New Haven Primary School (East Allen County Schools)	91.6		D	B
Heritage Elementary School (East Allen County Schools)	88.2		D	B
Woodlan Jr/Sr High School (East Allen County Schools)	80.2	117.2	B	B
Cedarville Elementary School (East Allen County Schools)	88.9		B	A
Paul Harding Jr High School (East Allen County Schools)	96.8		D	C
New Haven High School (East Allen County Schools)		113.3	B	B
New Haven Middle School (East Allen County Schools)	108.9		C	B
New Haven Intermediate School (East Allen County Schools)	91.6		D	B
Southwick Elementary School (East Allen County Schools)	89.9		F	D
Woodlan Elementary School (East Allen County Schools)	88.9		C	A
East Allen University (East Allen County Schools)		107.6	A	A
Clifty Creek Elementary School (Bartholomew Con School Corp)	104.6		C	C
CSA Lincoln Campus (Bartholomew Con School Corp)	128.1		A	A
Mount Healthy Elementary School (Bartholomew Con School Corp)	113.3		B	B
Parkside Elementary School (Bartholomew Con School Corp)	111.5		B	B
W D Richards Elementary School (Bartholomew Con School Corp)	114.5		B	A
Rockcreek Elementary School (Bartholomew Con School Corp)	111		B	A
Lillian Schmitt Elementary School (Bartholomew Con School Corp)	97.6		D	C
L F Smith Elementary (Bartholomew Con School Corp)	105.9		C	B
CSA Fodrea Campus (Bartholomew Con School Corp)	84.6		D	B
Taylorsville Elementary School (Bartholomew Con School Corp)	102.3		D	C
Central Middle School (Bartholomew Con School Corp)	73.7		F	C
Southside Elementary School (Bartholomew Con School Corp)	112.8		B	B
Northside Middle School (Bartholomew Con School Corp)	98.6		C	B
Columbus North High School (Bartholomew Con School Corp)		83.6	B	B
Columbus East High School (Bartholomew Con School Corp)		74.2	B	B
Hope Elementary School (Flat Rock-Hawcreek School Corp)	84.1		C	B
Hauser Jr-Sr High School (Flat Rock-Hawcreek School Corp)	75.2	84.5	C	B
Otterbein Elementary School (Benton Community School Corp)	94.5		C	B
Boswell Elementary School (Benton Community School Corp)	82.6		F	C
Benton Central Jr-Sr High School (Benton Community School Corp)	94.4	101.2	B	B
Prairie Crossing Elementary School (Benton Community School Corp)	100.7		C	C
Montpelier School (Blackford County Schools)	71.6		F	B
Blackford High School (Blackford County Schools)		82.3	B	B
Blackford Junior High School (Blackford County Schools)	78.9		D	C
North Side Elementary School (Blackford County Schools)	108.3		B	A
Southside Elementary School (Blackford County Schools)	108.3		B	A
Granville Wells Elementary School (Western Boone Co Com Sch Dist)	110.3		B	B
Thorntown Elementary School (Western Boone Co Com Sch Dist)	87.5		C	B
Western Boone Jr-Sr High School (Western Boone Co Com Sch Dist)	92.2	110.8	B	B
Zionsville West Middle School (Zionsville Community Schools)	103		B	A
Zionsville Middle School (Zionsville Community Schools)	101.7		B	A
Zionsville Community High School (Zionsville Community Schools)		106	A	A
Eagle Elementary School (Zionsville Community Schools)	130.3		A	A
Zionsville Pleasant View Elem Sch (Zionsville Community Schools)	122.7		A	A
Union Elementary School (Zionsville Community Schools)	113.3		A	A
Stonegate Elementary (Zionsville Community Schools)	136.2		A	A
Boone Meadow (Zionsville Community Schools)	121.2		A	A
Perry Worth Elementary School (Lebanon Community School Corp)	87.1		C	B
Lebanon Senior High School (Lebanon Community School Corp)		91.3	B	B
Lebanon Middle School (Lebanon Community School Corp)	96.5		C	B
Central Elementary School (Lebanon Community School Corp)	75		D	B
Harney Elementary School (Lebanon Community School Corp)	98.2		C	B
Hattie B Stokes Elementary School (Lebanon Community School Corp)	99.6		D	C
Brown County Intermediate School (Brown County School Corporation)	99.9		C	A
Brown County High School (Brown County School Corporation)		70.1	B	B
Van Buren Elementary School (Brown County School Corporation)	91.5		C	C
Helmsburg Elementary School (Brown County School Corporation)	112.2		B	B
Sprunica Elementary School (Brown County School Corporation)	109.7		B	B
Brown County Junior High (Brown County School Corporation)	81		D	B
Carroll Senior High School (Carroll Consolidated School Corp)		132.9	A	A
Carroll Junior High School (Carroll Consolidated School Corp)	112		B	B
Carroll Elementary School (Carroll Consolidated School Corp)	98.6		C	B
Delphi Community Middle School (Delphi Community School Corp)	95.5		C	C
Delphi Community High School (Delphi Community School Corp)		125.8	A	A
Delphi Community Elementary School (Delphi Community School Corp)	90		D	B
Pioneer Jr-Sr High School (Pioneer Regional School Corp)	117.5	124	B	B
Pioneer Elementary School (Pioneer Regional School Corp)	111		C	C
Lewis Cass High School (Southeastern School Corp)		115.5	A	A
Lewis Cass Junior High School (Southeastern School Corp)	103.5		A	A
Lewis Cass Elementary School (Southeastern School Corp)	90.6		D	C
Logansport Community High School (Logansport Community Sch Corp)		114.7	A	A
Logansport Junior High School (Logansport Community Sch Corp)	101.6		D	C
Franklin Elementary School (Logansport Community Sch Corp)	64.6		F	D
Fairview Elementary School (Logansport Community Sch Corp)	82.4		D	C
Landis Elementary School (Logansport Community Sch Corp)	79.9		D	C
Columbia Elementary School (Logansport Community Sch Corp)	83		F	C
Columbia 6th Grade Academy (Logansport Community Sch Corp)	84.1		F	D
Henryville Jr & Sr High School (West Clark Community Schools)	105.5	130.4	B	B
Henryville Elementary School (West Clark Community Schools)	92.9		D	B
Silver Creek High School (West Clark Community Schools)		112.5	A	A
Silver Creek Middle School (West Clark Community Schools)	109.9		C	A
Silver Creek Elementary School (West Clark Community Schools)	88.7		D	B
William W Borden High School (West Clark Community Schools)	124	125.8	A	A
William W Borden Elementary School (West Clark Community Schools)	97.5		B	A
Silver Creek Primary School (West Clark Community Schools)	88.7		D	B
Clarksville Senior High School (Clarksville Community School Corp)		84.7	B	B
Clarksville Elementary School (Clarksville Community School Corp)	115.3		B	A
Clarksville Middle School (Clarksville Community School Corp)	126.2		A	A
W E Wilson Elementary (Greater Clark County Schools)	97.4		C	C
Thomas Jefferson Elementary School (Greater Clark County Schools)	99.2		C	B
Northaven Elementary School (Greater Clark County Schools)	121.4		B	B
Utica Elementary School (Greater Clark County Schools)	114.3		A	A
New Washington Elementary School (Greater Clark County Schools)	93.7		C	B
New Washington Middle/High School (Greater Clark County Schools)	95.4	100.4	B	A
Charlestown Senior High School (Greater Clark County Schools)		86.7	B	A
Jonathan Jennings Elementary Sch (Greater Clark County Schools)	99.3		C	B
Pleasant Ridge Elementary School (Greater Clark County Schools)	99.3		C	B
Jeffersonville High School (Greater Clark County Schools)		88.7	B	B
Parkview Middle School (Greater Clark County Schools)	94.3		D	B
Charlestown Middle School (Greater Clark County Schools)	87.9		D	B
Bridgepoint Elementary School (Greater Clark County Schools)	79.1		F	C
Maple Elementary School (Greater Clark County Schools)	101.7		C	C
Riverside Elementary School (Greater Clark County Schools)	103.3		B	B
Spring Hill Elementary School (Greater Clark County Schools)	90.6		D	C
Parkwood Elementary School (Greater Clark County Schools)	77.9		F	C
River Valley Middle School (Greater Clark County Schools)	103.6		C	C
Clay City Elementary School (Clay Community Schools)	70.1		F	B
Clay City Jr-Sr High School (Clay Community Schools)	64.8	107.3	C	B
Jackson Township Elementary School (Clay Community Schools)	93.4		B	A
Staunton Elementary School (Clay Community Schools)	96.7		B	A
Van Buren Elementary School (Clay Community Schools)	97.9		C	A
North Clay Middle School (Clay Community Schools)	87.8		D	C
Northview High School (Clay Community Schools)		79.7	B	B
East Side Elementary School (Clay Community Schools)	96.7		C	B
Forest Park Elementary School (Clay Community Schools)	100.5		D	D
Meridian Street Elementary School (Clay Community Schools)	113.6		B	A
Clinton Central Junior-Senior HS (Clinton Central School Corporation)			UNDER APPEAL	Appeal Pending
Clinton Central Elementary School (Clinton Central School Corporation)	93.2		C	A
Clinton Prairie Jr-Sr High School (Clinton Prairie School Corporation)	69.2	84.8	C	C
Clinton Prairie Elementary School (Clinton Prairie School Corporation)	87.7		D	B
Frankfort High School (Community Schools of Frankfort)			UNDER APPEAL	Appeal Pending
Frankfort Middle School (Community Schools of Frankfort)	98.2		D	D
Blue Ridge Primary Elementary Sch (Community Schools of Frankfort)	83.4		D	D
Green Meadows Intermediate Elem (Community Schools of Frankfort)	83.4		D	D
Suncrest Elementary School (Community Schools of Frankfort)	111.4		C	B
Rossville Middle/Senior High Sch (Rossville Con School District)	96.7	108	B	B
Rossville Elementary School (Rossville Con School District)	99.2		C	C
South Crawford Elementary School (Crawford County Community Sch Corp)	124.3		B	B
West Crawford Elementary School (Crawford County Community Sch Corp)	68.6		D	B
Crawford County High School (Crawford County Community Sch Corp)		95.8	A	A
Crawford County Middle School (Crawford County Community Sch Corp)	108.2		C	B
East Crawford Elementary School (Crawford County Community Sch Corp)	101.9		C	C
Barr Reeve Middle/High School (Barr-Reeve Community Schools Inc)	99.8	115.2	A	A
Barr Reeve Primary Grade School (Barr-Reeve Community Schools Inc)	110.1		A	A
Barr Reeve Elementary School (Barr-Reeve Community Schools Inc)	110.1		A	A
North Daviess Elementary School (North Daviess Com Schools)	95.4		C	B
North Daviess Jr-Sr High School (North Daviess Com Schools)	86	102.7	B	B
Lena Dunn Elementary School (Washington Community Schools)	77.2		F	F
Veale Elementary School (Washington Community Schools)	102.6		B	A
Washington Junior High School (Washington Community Schools)	92.4		D	C
Washington High School (Washington Community Schools)		84.6	B	B
North Elementary School (Washington Community Schools)	83		D	B
Helen Griffith Elementary School (Washington Community Schools)	84		D	C
North Dearborn Elementary School (Sunman-Dearborn Com Sch Corp)	88.8		C	A
Sunman-Dearborn Middle School (Sunman-Dearborn Com Sch Corp)	99.2		C	B
Bright Elementary School (Sunman-Dearborn Com Sch Corp)	86.5		C	B
Sunman Elementary School (Sunman-Dearborn Com Sch Corp)	95.8		C	C
East Central High School (Sunman-Dearborn Com Sch Corp)		109.5	A	A
Dillsboro Elementary School (South Dearborn Community Sch Corp)	121.2		B	B
Manchester Elementary School (South Dearborn Community Sch Corp)	89.3		C	B
Moores Hill Elementary School (South Dearborn Community Sch Corp)	110.9		B	B
South Dearborn Middle School (South Dearborn Community Sch Corp)	74		F	C
South Dearborn High School (South Dearborn Community Sch Corp)		77.7	B	B
Aurora Elementary School (South Dearborn Community Sch Corp)	109.7		C	C
Lawrenceburg High School (Lawrenceburg Community School Corp)		95.1	A	A
Greendale Middle School (Lawrenceburg Community School Corp)	92		D	B
Lawrenceburg Primary School (Lawrenceburg Community School Corp)	89.4		C	C
Central Elementary School (Lawrenceburg Community School Corp)	89.4		C	C
South Decatur Jr-Sr High School (Decatur County Community Schools)	76.1	99.1	B	B
South Decatur Elementary School (Decatur County Community Schools)	91.6		D	B
North Decatur Elementary School (Decatur County Community Schools)	89.2		C	B
North Decatur Jr-Sr High School (Decatur County Community Schools)	104	107.6	B	A
Greensburg Community High School (Greensburg Community Schools)		80	B	B
Greensburg Community Jr High (Greensburg Community Schools)	84.9		D	C
Greensburg Elementary (Greensburg Community Schools)	92		C	A
Eastside Junior-Senior High School (DeKalb Co Eastern Com Sch Dist)	110.9	103	B	B
Butler Elementary School (DeKalb Co Eastern Com Sch Dist)	90.6		D	C
Riverdale Elementary School (DeKalb Co Eastern Com Sch Dist)	114.3		B	A
Garrett High School (Garrett-Keyser-Butler Com Sch Corp)		79.6	B	B
J E Ober Elementary School (Garrett-Keyser-Butler Com Sch Corp)	87.4		D	C
Garrett Middle School (Garrett-Keyser-Butler Com Sch Corp)	97.3		C	B
Waterloo Elementary School (DeKalb Co Ctl United Sch Dist)	96.3		C	C
DeKalb High School (DeKalb Co Ctl United Sch Dist)		81.1	B	B
DeKalb Middle School (DeKalb Co Ctl United Sch Dist)	104.3		B	B
James R Watson Elementary School (DeKalb Co Ctl United Sch Dist)	99.9		C	A
McKenney-Harrison Elementary Sch (DeKalb Co Ctl United Sch Dist)	108.5		C	C
Country Meadow Elementary School (DeKalb Co Ctl United Sch Dist)	75.7		D	C
Royerton Elementary School (Delaware Community School Corp)	92.3		B	A
Delta Middle School (Delaware Community School Corp)	91.9		C	B
Delta High School (Delaware Community School Corp)		111	A	A
Eaton Elementary School (Delaware Community School Corp)	108.7		B	B
Albany Elementary School (Delaware Community School Corp)	114.1		B	A
Wes-Del Middle/Senior High School (Wes-Del Community Schools)	89.9	97.1	C	C
Wes-Del Elementary School (Wes-Del Community Schools)	78.6		D	D
Wapahani High School (Liberty-Perry Community Sch Corp)		92.2	B	B
Selma Middle School (Liberty-Perry Community Sch Corp)	112.1		B	A
Selma Elementary School (Liberty-Perry Community Sch Corp)	94.7		C	C
Cowan Elementary School (Cowan Community School Corp)	104		C	B
Cowan High School (Cowan Community School Corp)	71.8	131.2	B	B
Yorktown Middle School (Yorktown Community Schools)	102.4		C	C
Yorktown High School (Yorktown Community Schools)		107.5	A	A
Yorktown Elementary School (Yorktown Community Schools)	94		C	B
Pleasant View Elementary School (Yorktown Community Schools)	94		C	B
Daleville Jr-Sr High School (Daleville Community Schools)	87.6	90	B	B
Daleville Elementary School (Daleville Community Schools)	100.7		C	C
Celestine Elementary School (Northeast Dubois Co Sch Corp)	79		D	B
Northeast Dubois High School (Northeast Dubois Co Sch Corp)		77.4	B	B
Dubois Middle School (Northeast Dubois Co Sch Corp)	104.5		B	A
Dubois Elementary School (Northeast Dubois Co Sch Corp)	63.2		F	B
Pine Ridge Elementary School (Southeast Dubois Co Sch Corp)	120.1		A	A
Ferdinand Elementary School (Southeast Dubois Co Sch Corp)	136.5		A	A
Forest Park Jr-Sr High School (Southeast Dubois Co Sch Corp)	103.2	101.7	B	A
Cedar Crest Intermediate School (Southeast Dubois Co Sch Corp)	87.4		C	B
Holland Elementary School (Southwest Dubois Co Sch Corp)	99.5		B	A
Southridge Middle School (Southwest Dubois Co Sch Corp)	127.3		A	A
Southridge High School (Southwest Dubois Co Sch Corp)		83.3	B	B
Huntingburg Elementary School (Southwest Dubois Co Sch Corp)	98.1		C	B
Ireland Elementary School (Greater Jasper Consolidated Schs)	100.1		B	B
Jasper Middle School (Greater Jasper Consolidated Schs)	105.5		B	B
Jasper High School (Greater Jasper Consolidated Schs)		117.3	A	A
Fifth Street Elementary School (Greater Jasper Consolidated Schs)	100.9		C	B
Tenth Street School (Greater Jasper Consolidated Schs)	100.9		C	B
Fairfield Jr-Sr High School (Fairfield Community Schools)	92.1	90.4	B	B
Millersburg Elementary- Middle Sch (Fairfield Community Schools)	88.7		C	B
New Paris Elementary School (Fairfield Community Schools)	103.3		B	B
Benton Elementary School (Fairfield Community Schools)	107.8		B	B
Jimtown High School (Baugo Community Schools)			UNDER APPEAL	Appeal Pending
Jimtown Junior High School (Baugo Community Schools)	91.3		D	B
Jimtown Elementary School (Baugo Community Schools)	105.6		B	B
Jimtown Intermediate School (Baugo Community Schools)	105.6		B	B
Concord Junior High School (Concord Community Schools)	106.4		C	C
Concord Community High School (Concord Community Schools)		83.2	B	B
Concord Intermediate School (Concord Community Schools)	103.8		C	B
Concord East Side Elementary Sch (Concord Community Schools)	96.2		C	B
Concord Ox-Bow Elementary School (Concord Community Schools)	113.2		B	B
Concord South Side Elementary Sch (Concord Community Schools)	89.5		D	C
Concord West Side Elem School (Concord Community Schools)	88.3		D	B
Jefferson Elementary School (Middlebury Community Schools)	89.3		C	B
Northridge Middle School (Middlebury Community Schools)	99.8		C	A
York Elementary School (Middlebury Community Schools)	89.3		C	C
Heritage Intermediate School (Middlebury Community Schools)	89.3		D	C
Middlebury Elementary School (Middlebury Community Schools)	89.3		C	B
Northridge High School (Middlebury Community Schools)		88.3	B	A
Orchard View School (Middlebury Community Schools)	89.3		C	B
North Wood Middle School (Wa-Nee Community Schools)	95.8		C	B
Wakarusa Elementary School (Wa-Nee Community Schools)	120		A	A
North Wood High School (Wa-Nee Community Schools)		105.4	A	A
Nappanee Elementary School (Wa-Nee Community Schools)	106.3		B	A
Woodview Elementary School (Wa-Nee Community Schools)	115.6		B	B
Cleveland Elementary School (Elkhart Community Schools)	96.9		C	B
Osolo Elementary School (Elkhart Community Schools)	107.4		C	B
Eastwood Elementary School (Elkhart Community Schools)	107.6		C	C
Mary Feeser Elementary School (Elkhart Community Schools)	92.4		D	C
Bristol Elementary School (Elkhart Community Schools)	88.9		D	C
Elkhart Central High School (Elkhart Community Schools)		87.7	B	B
Elkhart Memorial High School (Elkhart Community Schools)		75.7	B	B
North Side Middle School (Elkhart Community Schools)	77.3		F	D
West Side Middle School (Elkhart Community Schools)	97.5		D	C
Pierre Moran Middle School (Elkhart Community Schools)	92.7		D	D
Beardsley Elementary School (Elkhart Community Schools)	78.9		F	F
Mary Beck Elementary School (Elkhart Community Schools)	121.9		D	D
Mary Daly Elementary School (Elkhart Community Schools)	86.7		F	D
Hawthorne Elementary School (Elkhart Community Schools)	78.1		F	F
Pinewood Elementary School (Elkhart Community Schools)	90.7		D	C
Monger Elementary School (Elkhart Community Schools)	119.1		B	B
Riverview Elementary School (Elkhart Community Schools)	113.6		C	B
Roosevelt STEAM Academy (Elkhart Community Schools)	84.2		F	F
Woodland Elementary School (Elkhart Community Schools)	99.2		D	B
Goshen Middle School (Goshen Community Schools)	100.5		C	C
Model Elementary School (Goshen Community Schools)	110.2		C	C
Waterford Elementary School (Goshen Community Schools)	104.9		C	C
Goshen High School (Goshen Community Schools)		113	B	B
Chamberlain Elementary School (Goshen Community Schools)	124.2		C	C
Chandler Elementary School (Goshen Community Schools)	110.4		C	C
Parkside Elementary School (Goshen Community Schools)	127		A	A
Prairie View Elementary School (Goshen Community Schools)	115.1		B	B
West Goshen Elementary School (Goshen Community Schools)	113.6		B	A
Everton Elementary School (Fayette County School Corporation)	123.2		B	A
Connersville Sr High School (Fayette County School Corporation)		68.8	B	B
Connersville Middle School (Fayette County School Corporation)	95.7		C	B
Eastview Elementary School (Fayette County School Corporation)	89.2		C	A
Frazee Elementary School (Fayette County School Corporation)	84.4		D	B
Grandview Elementary School (Fayette County School Corporation)	89		D	B
Maplewood Elementary School (Fayette County School Corporation)	75.3		F	D
Fayette Central Elementary (Fayette County School Corporation)	110.5		B	A
New Albany Senior High School (New Albany-Floyd Co Con Sch)		70.9	C	B
Georgetown Elementary School (New Albany-Floyd Co Con Sch)	83.2		C	A
Floyd Central High School (New Albany-Floyd Co Con Sch)		87.1	B	A
Highland Hills Middle School (New Albany-Floyd Co Con Sch)	92.1		C	A
Hazelwood Middle School (New Albany-Floyd Co Con Sch)	84.6		D	C
Nathaniel Scribner Middle School (New Albany-Floyd Co Con Sch)	82.5		D	B
Slate Run Elementary School (New Albany-Floyd Co Con Sch)	110.8		C	B
Fairmont Elementary School (New Albany-Floyd Co Con Sch)	117.1		B	B
Greenville Elementary School (New Albany-Floyd Co Con Sch)	87.3		C	A
Grant Line Elementary School (New Albany-Floyd Co Con Sch)	77.2		D	B
Green Valley Elementary School (New Albany-Floyd Co Con Sch)	70.1		F	B
Floyds Knobs Elementary School (New Albany-Floyd Co Con Sch)	96.3		B	A
Mount Tabor Elementary School (New Albany-Floyd Co Con Sch)	74.1		D	B
S Ellen Jones Elementary School (New Albany-Floyd Co Con Sch)	101.7		C	B
Attica High School (Attica Consolidated School Corp)	87.6	113.5	B	B
Attica Elementary School (Attica Consolidated School Corp)	95		C	B
Covington Community High School (Covington Community School Corp)		118.3	A	A
Covington Elementary School (Covington Community School Corp)	119.6		B	A
Covington Middle School (Covington Community School Corp)	91.2		C	B
Southeast Fountain Elementary (Southeast Fountain School Corp)	97.8		C	A
Fountain Central High School (Southeast Fountain School Corp)	75.2	71	C	C
Laurel School (Franklin County Community Sch Corp)	110.8		C	B
Franklin County High (Franklin County Community Sch Corp)		91.3	B	B
Franklin County Middle School (Franklin County Community Sch Corp)	91.7		D	C
Brookville Elementary School (Franklin County Community Sch Corp)	92.1		D	B
Mount Carmel School (Franklin County Community Sch Corp)	96.3		C	B
Rochester Community High School (Rochester Community School Corp)		68.7	B	B
Rochester Community Middle School (Rochester Community School Corp)	83.3		F	D
Columbia Elementary School (Rochester Community School Corp)	95.7		D	D
George M Riddle Elementary School (Rochester Community School Corp)	95.7		D	D
Caston Elementary School (Caston School Corporation)	114.9		B	B
Caston Jr-Sr High School (Caston School Corporation)	72.2	85.5	C	C
Barton Township Elementary (East Gibson School Corporation)	120.1		A	A
Waldo J Wood Memorial JHS (East Gibson School Corporation)	75.2		F	C
Francisco Elementary School (East Gibson School Corporation)	109		B	B
Waldo J Wood Memorial High (East Gibson School Corporation)		68.6	B	B
Oakland City Elementary School (East Gibson School Corporation)	94.1		D	D
Princeton Comm Intermediate School (North Gibson School Corp)	93.7		D	B
Princeton Community Middle (North Gibson School Corp)	87.5		D	D
Princeton Community High School (North Gibson School Corp)		88.4	B	B
Princeton Comm Primary School (North Gibson School Corp)	93.7		D	B
Haubstadt Community School (South Gibson School Corporation)	103.8		B	A
Gibson Southern High School (South Gibson School Corporation)		112.1	A	A
Fort Branch Community School (South Gibson School Corporation)	100.2		B	A
Owensville Community School (South Gibson School Corporation)	109.3		C	B
Eastbrook South Elementary (Eastbrook Community Sch Corp)	85.1		D	C
Eastbrook North Elementary (Eastbrook Community Sch Corp)	90.2		D	C
Eastbrook High School (Eastbrook Community Sch Corp)		92.6	B	A
Eastbrook Junior High School (Eastbrook Community Sch Corp)	97.4		D	B
Madison-Grant Jr./Sr. High School (Madison-Grant United School Corp)	99.3	105.3	B	B
Park Elementary School (Madison-Grant United School Corp)	83		D	C
Summitville School (Madison-Grant United School Corp)	109.8		C	C
Mississinewa High School (Mississinewa Community School Corp)		84.9	B	A
R J Baskett Middle School (Mississinewa Community School Corp)	86.8		D	C
Westview Elementary School (Mississinewa Community School Corp)	87.1		D	C
Northview Elementary School (Mississinewa Community School Corp)	87.1		D	C
Justice Thurgood Marshall Intrmd (Marion Community Schools)	74.6		F	D
Marion High School (Marion Community Schools)		109.3	B	B
John L McCulloch Junior High Sch (Marion Community Schools)	72.1		F	F
Allen Elementary School (Marion Community Schools)	111.5		D	B
John W Kendall Elem School (Marion Community Schools)	101.1		D	C
Riverview Elementary School (Marion Community Schools)	119.4		B	A
Frances Slocum Elem School (Marion Community Schools)	91.5		F	B
Bloomfield Elementary School (Bloomfield School District)	96.2		C	B
Bloomfield Jr-Sr High School (Bloomfield School District)	86.5	89.8	C	B
Eastern Greene Elementary School (Eastern Greene Schools)	91.9		C	B
Eastern Greene High School (Eastern Greene Schools)		94.7	B	A
Eastern Greene Middle School (Eastern Greene Schools)	101.6		C	A
Linton-Stockton High School (Linton-Stockton School Corporation)		64.7	B	B
Linton-Stockton Middle School (Linton-Stockton School Corporation)	77		F	C
Linton-Stockton Elementary (Linton-Stockton School Corporation)	93.1		C	A
Shakamak Jr-Sr High School (M S D Shakamak Schools)	90.3	136.2	B	A
Shakamak Elementary School (M S D Shakamak Schools)	83		D	B
White River Valley High School (White River Valley School District)		95.6	B	A
White River Valley Middle School (White River Valley School District)	97.7		C	C
White River Valley Elementary Sch (White River Valley School District)	107.9		B	B
Brooks School Elementary (Hamilton Southeastern Schools)	94.9		B	A
New Britton Elementary School (Hamilton Southeastern Schools)	104.3		B	A
Fishers Elementary School (Hamilton Southeastern Schools)	101.9		C	A
Cumberland Road Elem School (Hamilton Southeastern Schools)	93.3		C	A
Hoosier Road Elementary School (Hamilton Southeastern Schools)	84.8		C	A
Fall Creek Elementary School (Hamilton Southeastern Schools)	102		B	B
Geist Elementary School (Hamilton Southeastern Schools)	109.3		A	A
Lantern Road Elementary School (Hamilton Southeastern Schools)	95.2		B	A
Fishers Junior High School (Hamilton Southeastern Schools)	101.9		B	A
Sand Creek Intermediate School (Hamilton Southeastern Schools)	94.2		C	A
Harrison Parkway Elementary School (Hamilton Southeastern Schools)	98.2		B	A
Sand Creek Elementary (Hamilton Southeastern Schools)	91.6		C	B
Thorpe Creek Elementary (Hamilton Southeastern Schools)	91		B	A
Fall Creek Intermediate School (Hamilton Southeastern Schools)	88.7		C	A
Fall Creek Junior High (Hamilton Southeastern Schools)	105.1		B	A
Fishers High School (Hamilton Southeastern Schools)		117.2	A	A
Hamilton SE Int and Jr High Sch (Hamilton Southeastern Schools)	100.5		B	A
Riverside Junior High (Hamilton Southeastern Schools)	83.1		C	A
Durbin Elementary School (Hamilton Southeastern Schools)	102.4		B	A
Hamilton Southeastern HS (Hamilton Southeastern Schools)		114.5	A	A
Riverside Intermediate School (Hamilton Southeastern Schools)	101.5		B	A
Hamilton Heights High School (Hamilton Heights School Corp)		100.9	A	A
Hamilton Heights Elementary School (Hamilton Heights School Corp)	81.2		D	B
Hamilton Heights Middle School (Hamilton Heights School Corp)	94.7		C	B
Hamilton Heights Primary School (Hamilton Heights School Corp)	81.2		D	B
Westfield Middle School (Westfield-Washington Schools)	113.8		B	B
Shamrock Springs Elementary School (Westfield-Washington Schools)	89.1		B	A
Westfield High School (Westfield-Washington Schools)		124.1	A	A
Carey Ridge Elementary School (Westfield-Washington Schools)	101.2		B	A
Washington Woods Elementary School (Westfield-Washington Schools)	121.2		A	A
Oak Trace Elementary School (Westfield-Washington Schools)	81.9		B	B
Monon Trail Elementary School (Westfield-Washington Schools)	94.1		B	B
Westfield Intermediate School (Westfield-Washington Schools)	99.3		B	B
Maple Glen Elementary (Westfield-Washington Schools)	115.9		A	A
Sheridan High School (Sheridan Community Schools)		121.1	A	A
Sheridan Elementary School (Sheridan Community Schools)	90.4		C	C
Sheridan Middle School (Sheridan Community Schools)	96.5		C	B
Carmel High School (Carmel Clay Schools)		121.2	A	A
Clay Middle School (Carmel Clay Schools)	101.4		B	A
Woodbrook Elementary School (Carmel Clay Schools)	108.8		A	A
Cherry Tree Elementary School (Carmel Clay Schools)	123.9		A	A
Carmel Elementary School (Carmel Clay Schools)	101.9		B	B
College Wood Elementary School (Carmel Clay Schools)	111.3		A	A
Carmel Middle School (Carmel Clay Schools)	93.3		B	B
Smoky Row Elementary School (Carmel Clay Schools)	116.8		A	A
Orchard Park Elementary School (Carmel Clay Schools)	110		B	A
Prairie Trace Elementary School (Carmel Clay Schools)	104.7		A	A
Mohawk Trails Elementary School (Carmel Clay Schools)	100.5		B	A
Forest Dale Elementary School (Carmel Clay Schools)	109.1		A	A
Creekside Middle School (Carmel Clay Schools)	106.5		A	A
Towne Meadow Elementary School (Carmel Clay Schools)	103.1		A	A
West Clay Elementary School (Carmel Clay Schools)	99.9		A	A
Noblesville High School (Noblesville Schools)		108.5	A	A
Noblesville East Middle School (Noblesville Schools)	101.6		B	A
Hinkle Creek Elementary School (Noblesville Schools)	110.6		B	B
North Elementary School (Noblesville Schools)	95.4		C	A
Stony Creek Elementary School (Noblesville Schools)	102.6		B	A
Noble Crossing Elementary School (Noblesville Schools)	99.8		B	A
Hazel Dell Elementary School (Noblesville Schools)	94.3		C	A
Promise Road Elementary (Noblesville Schools)	107.3		B	A
Noblesville West Middle School (Noblesville Schools)	97.6		B	A
White River Elementary School (Noblesville Schools)	83.2		D	B
New Palestine Intermediate School (Southern Hancock Co Com Sch Corp)	112.8		A	A
Brandywine Elementary School (Southern Hancock Co Com Sch Corp)	105.5		B	A
New Palestine Elementary School (Southern Hancock Co Com Sch Corp)	80.5		D	A
New Palestine High School (Southern Hancock Co Com Sch Corp)		92.5	A	A
New Palestine Jr High School (Southern Hancock Co Com Sch Corp)	116		A	A
Sugar Creek Elementary Sch (Southern Hancock Co Com Sch Corp)	98.6		C	B
Maxwell Intermediate School (Greenfield-Central Com Schools)	99.8		B	A
Greenfield Central Junior High Sch (Greenfield-Central Com Schools)	91.6		C	C
Eden Elementary School (Greenfield-Central Com Schools)	99.8		A	A
JB Stephens Elementary School (Greenfield-Central Com Schools)	99.8		C	A
Greenfield Intermediate School (Greenfield-Central Com Schools)	95.5		C	B
Greenfield-Central High School (Greenfield-Central Com Schools)		96.2	A	A
Harris Elementary School (Greenfield-Central Com Schools)	95.5		B	B
Weston Elementary School (Greenfield-Central Com Schools)	95.5		B	A
Fortville Elementary School (Mt Vernon Community School Corp)	101.9		B	B
Mt Vernon Middle School (Mt Vernon Community School Corp)	87.9		D	B
Mt Comfort Elementary School (Mt Vernon Community School Corp)	88.4		C	B
Mt Vernon High School (Mt Vernon Community School Corp)		105.4	A	A
McCordsville Elementary School (Mt Vernon Community School Corp)	95.6		C	A
Eastern Hancock Middle School (Eastern Hancock Co Com Sch Corp)	100.6		C	A
Eastern Hancock High School (Eastern Hancock Co Com Sch Corp)		100.1	A	A
Eastern Hancock Elementary School (Eastern Hancock Co Com Sch Corp)	107.2		B	A
Lanesville Elementary School (Lanesville Community School Corp)	112.1		B	B
Lanesville Jr-Sr HS (Lanesville Community School Corp)	100.5	107	B	B
Morgan Elementary School (North Harrison Com School Corp)	119.2		A	A
North Harrison Middle School (North Harrison Com School Corp)	89.1		C	C
North Harrison High School (North Harrison Com School Corp)		83.3	B	B
North Harrison Elementary School (North Harrison Com School Corp)	81.2		C	C
Corydon Central High School (South Harrison Com Schools)		104.9	A	A
Corydon Central Jr High School (South Harrison Com Schools)	112.7		B	B
Corydon Elementary School (South Harrison Com Schools)	94.7		C	B
New Middletown Elementary School (South Harrison Com Schools)	85.8		C	B
Heth-Washington Elementary School (South Harrison Com Schools)	70.2		F	A
Corydon Intermediate School (South Harrison Com Schools)	94.7		C	B
South Central Elementary (South Harrison Com Schools)	84.9		D	A
South Central Jr & Sr High School (South Harrison Com Schools)	89.9	99.9	B	B
Tri-West Middle School (North West Hendricks Schools)	101.6		B	B
Pittsboro Primary School (North West Hendricks Schools)	93.9		B	A
North Salem Elementary School (North West Hendricks Schools)	122.1		A	A
Pittsboro Elementary School (North West Hendricks Schools)	93.9		B	A
Tri-West Senior High School (North West Hendricks Schools)		102.6	A	A
Brown Elementary School (Brownsburg Community School Corp)	98.4		B	A
Brownsburg High School (Brownsburg Community School Corp)		86	A	A
Eagle Elementary School (Brownsburg Community School Corp)	108.1		A	A
Brownsburg West Middle School (Brownsburg Community School Corp)	101.9		B	A
Reagan Elementary School (Brownsburg Community School Corp)	116		A	A
Delaware Trail Elementary School (Brownsburg Community School Corp)	106.8		A	A
Brownsburg East Middle School (Brownsburg Community School Corp)	99.2		B	A
White Lick Elementary School (Brownsburg Community School Corp)	116.7		A	A
Cardinal Elementary School (Brownsburg Community School Corp)	113.8		A	A
Lincoln Elementary School (Brownsburg Community School Corp)	124.6		A	A
River Birch Elementary School (Avon Community School Corp)	90.5		C	B
Avon Intermediate School East (Avon Community School Corp)	97.8		B	B
Avon Intermediate School West (Avon Community School Corp)	97		C	C
Avon Middle School North (Avon Community School Corp)	101.5		C	C
Maple Elementary School (Avon Community School Corp)	83		C	A
White Oak Elementary School (Avon Community School Corp)	114.6		B	B
Sycamore Elementary School (Avon Community School Corp)	102.9		B	A
Avon Middle School South (Avon Community School Corp)	109		B	B
Avon High School (Avon Community School Corp)		112.6	A	A
Cedar Elementary School (Avon Community School Corp)	96.2		C	A
Pine Tree Elementary School (Avon Community School Corp)	119.2		A	A
Hickory Elementary School (Avon Community School Corp)	96		B	B
North Elementary School (Danville Community School Corp)	108.7		B	A
Danville Community High School (Danville Community School Corp)		86.2	B	A
Danville Middle School (Danville Community School Corp)	100.7		B	A
South Elementary School (Danville Community School Corp)	108.7		B	A
Clarks Creek Elementary (Plainfield Community School Corp)	102.2		B	A
Plainfield High School (Plainfield Community School Corp)		95.6	A	A
Plainfield Community Middle School (Plainfield Community School Corp)	103.2		B	A
Central Elementary School (Plainfield Community School Corp)	114.9		A	A
Van Buren Elementary School (Plainfield Community School Corp)	113.4		A	A
Brentwood Elementary School (Plainfield Community School Corp)	97.4		B	A
Mill Creek East Elementary (Mill Creek Community Sch Corp)	113.7		B	B
Mill Creek West Elementary (Mill Creek Community Sch Corp)	125.4		A	A
Cascade Middle School (Mill Creek Community Sch Corp)	107.5		B	A
Cascade Senior High School (Mill Creek Community Sch Corp)		111.1	A	A
Blue River Valley Jr-Sr High Sch (Blue River Valley Schools)	61.7	94.1	D	C
Blue River Valley Elementary Sch (Blue River Valley Schools)	106.2		C	C
Tri Junior-Senior High School (South Henry School Corp)	89.2	121.4	C	B
Tri-Elementary School (South Henry School Corp)	104		C	C
Shenandoah Elementary School (Shenandoah School Corporation)	103.6		B	A
Shenandoah High School (Shenandoah School Corporation)		80.1	B	B
Shenandoah Middle School (Shenandoah School Corporation)	85.3		D	B
New Castle High School (New Castle Community School Corp)		93.1	B	B
New Castle Middle School (New Castle Community School Corp)	77.3		F	D
Eastwood Elementary School (New Castle Community School Corp)	86.6		D	B
Parker Elementary School (New Castle Community School Corp)	84.2		D	D
James Whitcomb Riley Elem School (New Castle Community School Corp)	96.2		C	C
Sunnyside Elementary School (New Castle Community School Corp)	96.2		B	B
Westwood Elementary School (New Castle Community School Corp)	94.3		C	C
Wilbur Wright Elementary School (New Castle Community School Corp)	76.4		D	C
Knightstown High School (C A Beard Memorial School Corp)		109.3	A	A
Knightstown Intermediate School (C A Beard Memorial School Corp)	78.2		F	C
Knightstown Elementary School (C A Beard Memorial School Corp)	78.2		D	B
Taylor High School (Taylor Community School Corp)		100.9	A	A
Taylor Elementary School (Taylor Community School Corp)	94		D	D
Taylor Middle School (Taylor Community School Corp)	92		F	C
Northwestern Senior High School (Northwestern School Corp)		97.4	A	A
Northwestern Elementary School (Northwestern School Corp)	78.3		D	C
Howard Elementary School (Northwestern School Corp)	96.6		C	B
Northwestern Middle School (Northwestern School Corp)	106.7		C	B
Eastern Elementary School (Eastern Howard School Corporation)	82.8		D	B
Eastern Middle School (Eastern Howard School Corporation)	96.1		C	A
Eastern High School (Eastern Howard School Corporation)		132.5	A	A
Western High School (Western School Corp)		93.1	A	A
Western Middle School (Western School Corp)	104.2		B	A
Western Intermediate School (Western School Corp)	92.4		C	B
Western Primary School (Western School Corp)	92.4		C	B
Sycamore Elementary School (Kokomo School Corporation)	110.4		C	C
Bon Air Elementary School (Kokomo School Corporation)	99.7		D	B
Boulevard Elementary School (Kokomo School Corporation)	86.5		D	C
Bon Air Middle School (Kokomo School Corporation)	96.8		F	F
Central Middle School (Kokomo School Corporation)	91.9		D	D
Elwood Haynes Elementary School (Kokomo School Corporation)	83.7		F	D
Maple Crest Middle School (Kokomo School Corporation)	85.3		F	F
Lafayette Park Elementary School (Kokomo School Corporation)	102.6		C	C
Pettit Park School (Kokomo School Corporation)	74.9		F	D
Wallace Elementary School (Kokomo School Corporation)	117		A	A
Kokomo High School (Kokomo School Corporation)		86.9	B	B
Andrews Elementary School (Huntington Co Com Sch Corp)	89.3		D	B
Riverview School (Huntington Co Com Sch Corp)	100		C	B
Roanoke Elementary School (Huntington Co Com Sch Corp)	91.9		D	B
Salamonie School (Huntington Co Com Sch Corp)	83.9		C	C
Crestview Middle School (Huntington Co Com Sch Corp)	86.9		D	B
Huntington North High School (Huntington Co Com Sch Corp)		77.9	B	B
Flint Springs Elementary (Huntington Co Com Sch Corp)	74.8		F	C
Lincoln Elementary School (Huntington Co Com Sch Corp)	90.1		D	C
Horace Mann Elementary (Huntington Co Com Sch Corp)	97.6		A	A
Medora Jr & Sr High School (Medora Community School Corp)	98.8		D	D
Medora Elementary School (Medora Community School Corp)	59.5		F	F
Cortland Elementary School (Seymour Community Schools)	127.8		A	A
Seymour Senior High School (Seymour Community Schools)		98.4	B	B
Margaret R Brown Elementary School (Seymour Community Schools)	103.3		D	C
Seymour Middle School (Seymour Community Schools)	90.3		D	C
Emerson Elementary School (Seymour Community Schools)	93.3		C	B
Seymour-Jackson Elementary School (Seymour Community Schools)	87.9		D	B
Seymour-Redding Elementary School (Seymour Community Schools)	100.3		C	B
Brownstown Central Middle School (Brownstown Cnt Com Sch Corp)	95.8		D	C
Brownstown Central High School (Brownstown Cnt Com Sch Corp)		98.9	A	A
Brownstown Elementary School (Brownstown Cnt Com Sch Corp)	83.4		D	C
Crothersville Jr-Sr High School (Crothersville Community Schools)	58.9	53.4	D	C
Crothersville Elementary School (Crothersville Community Schools)	67.5		F	F
Kankakee Valley High School (Kankakee Valley School Corp)		98.5	B	A
Kankakee Valley Middle School (Kankakee Valley School Corp)	87.1		D	B
DeMotte Elementary School (Kankakee Valley School Corp)	90.4		C	B
Wheatfield Elementary School (Kankakee Valley School Corp)	90.4		C	B
Kankakee Valley Intermediate Sch (Kankakee Valley School Corp)	90.4		C	B
Rensselaer Central High School (Rensselaer Central School Corp)		86.6	B	B
Van Rensselaer Elementary School (Rensselaer Central School Corp)	103.3		C	B
Rensselaer Central Primary School (Rensselaer Central School Corp)	103.3		C	B
Rensselaer Middle School (Rensselaer Central School Corp)	83.6		D	C
Jay County High School (Jay School Corporation)		45.2	C	B
Bloomfield Elementary School (Jay School Corporation)	89.6		C	B
Redkey Elementary School (Jay School Corporation)	85		D	B
East Jay County Middle School (Jay School Corporation)	99.4		C	B
General Shanks Elem School (Jay School Corporation)	98.7		C	C
West Jay County Middle School (Jay School Corporation)	90.1		D	C
East Elementary School (Jay School Corporation)	99.1		C	B
Westlawn Elementary School (Jay School Corporation)	76.1		D	B
Deputy Elementary School (Madison Consolidated Schools)	121		A	A
Madison Consolidated High School (Madison Consolidated Schools)		93.8	B	B
Madison Consolidated Jr High Sch (Madison Consolidated Schools)	98.8		C	C
Rykers' Ridge Elementary School (Madison Consolidated Schools)	84.2		C	C
Lydia Middleton Elementary School (Madison Consolidated Schools)	104.6		B	B
Emery O Muncie Elementary School (Madison Consolidated Schools)	78.8		F	C
Southwestern High School (Southwestern-Jefferson Co Con)		107	B	B
Southwestern Elementary School (Southwestern-Jefferson Co Con)	90.2		D	C
Southwestern Middle School (Southwestern-Jefferson Co Con)	95.1		D	C
Jennings County High School (Jennings County School Corporation)		70	B	B
Sand Creek Elementary School (Jennings County School Corporation)	127.8		B	B
Scipio Elementary School (Jennings County School Corporation)	91.4		D	B
Graham Creek Elementary School (Jennings County School Corporation)	91.8		C	A
Hayden Elementary School (Jennings County School Corporation)	79.9		D	B
Brush Creek Elementary School (Jennings County School Corporation)	89.6		D	A
Jennings County Middle School (Jennings County School Corporation)	87.2		D	C
North Vernon Elementary School (Jennings County School Corporation)	92.5		C	B
Clark Elementary School (Clark-Pleasant Community Sch Corp)	97.5		C	B
Whiteland Community High School (Clark-Pleasant Community Sch Corp)		78.4	B	B
Grassy Creek Elementary School (Clark-Pleasant Community Sch Corp)	86.3		C	B
Whiteland Elementary School (Clark-Pleasant Community Sch Corp)	103.4		B	A
Clark Pleasant Middle School (Clark-Pleasant Community Sch Corp)	105.9		B	A
Break-O-Day Elementary School (Clark-Pleasant Community Sch Corp)	96.1		C	C
Pleasant Crossing Elementary (Clark-Pleasant Community Sch Corp)	72.5		D	C
Sugar Grove Elementary School (Center Grove Community School Corp)	93		C	A
Center Grove Elementary School (Center Grove Community School Corp)	116.6		A	A
Center Grove High School (Center Grove Community School Corp)		96.5	A	A
Maple Grove Elementary School (Center Grove Community School Corp)	93.5		B	A
North Grove Elementary School (Center Grove Community School Corp)	94.8		B	B
Center Grove Middle School Central (Center Grove Community School Corp)	92		C	A
Center Grove Middle School North (Center Grove Community School Corp)	91.6		C	B
Pleasant Grove Elementary School (Center Grove Community School Corp)	90.1		C	A
Edinburgh Community High School (Edinburgh Community School Corp)		88.8	B	A
Edinburgh Comm Middle School (Edinburgh Community School Corp)	70.5		F	C
East Side Elementary School (Edinburgh Community School Corp)	92.5		C	B
Needham Elementary School (Franklin Community School Corp)	85		D	C
Union Elementary School (Franklin Community School Corp)	109.4		A	A
Franklin Community High School (Franklin Community School Corp)		99.1	B	B
Franklin Community Middle School (Franklin Community School Corp)	92.8		C	C
Custer Baker Intermediate School (Franklin Community School Corp)	95.4		C	C
Northwood Elementary School (Franklin Community School Corp)	116.3		B	B
Webb Elementary School (Franklin Community School Corp)	97		D	C
Creekside Elementary School (Franklin Community School Corp)	114		B	B
Greenwood Community High Sch (Greenwood Community Sch Corp)		104.4	B	A
Greenwood Middle School (Greenwood Community Sch Corp)	101		C	A
Greenwood Northeast Elementary Sch (Greenwood Community Sch Corp)	106.8		B	B
Westwood Elementary School (Greenwood Community Sch Corp)	74.3		C	A
V O Isom Central Elem School (Greenwood Community Sch Corp)	113.5		B	A
Southwest Elementary School (Greenwood Community Sch Corp)	108.1		B	A
Indian Creek Elementary School (Nineveh-Hensley-Jackson United)	96.5		C	A
Indian Creek Intermediate School (Nineveh-Hensley-Jackson United)	96.5		C	A
Indian Creek Middle School (Nineveh-Hensley-Jackson United)	100.4		C	A
Indian Creek Sr High School (Nineveh-Hensley-Jackson United)		77	B	B
North Knox Primary School (North Knox School Corp)	99.3		C	B
North Knox Jr-Sr High School (North Knox School Corp)	75.2	91.8	C	C
North Knox Intermediate (North Knox School Corp)	99.3		C	B
South Knox Elementary School (South Knox School Corp)	96.6		C	C
South Knox Middle-High School (South Knox School Corp)	103.2	83	B	A
Benjamin Franklin Elementary Sch (Vincennes Community School Corp)	107.6		B	B
Lincoln High School (Vincennes Community School Corp)		75.8	B	B
George Rogers Clark School (Vincennes Community School Corp)	86.3		D	D
James Whitcomb Riley Elem Sch (Vincennes Community School Corp)	74.7		F	C
Tecumseh-Harrison Elementary Sch (Vincennes Community School Corp)	105.4		D	D
Francis Vigo Elementary School (Vincennes Community School Corp)	90.9		D	D
North Webster Elementary School (Wawasee Community School Corp)	87.1		D	C
Wawasee Middle School (Wawasee Community School Corp)	91.8		D	C
Milford School (Wawasee Community School Corp)	96		D	D
Syracuse Elementary School (Wawasee Community School Corp)	96.6		C	C
Wawasee High School (Wawasee Community School Corp)			UNDER APPEAL	Appeal Pending
Claypool Elementary School (Warsaw Community Schools)	89.2		C	B
Lakeview Middle School (Warsaw Community Schools)	89.6		D	C
Eisenhower Elementary School (Warsaw Community Schools)	96.9		C	B
Harrison Elementary School (Warsaw Community Schools)	95.8		C	C
Leesburg Elementary School (Warsaw Community Schools)	95.9		D	C
Warsaw Community High School (Warsaw Community Schools)		93.9	B	B
Edgewood Middle School (Warsaw Community Schools)	99.9		C	B
Jefferson Elementary School (Warsaw Community Schools)	93.6		C	C
Lincoln Elementary School (Warsaw Community Schools)	106.2		B	A
Madison Elementary School (Warsaw Community Schools)	82.8		D	D
Washington Elementary School (Warsaw Community Schools)	91.9		C	B
Akron Elementary School (Tippecanoe Valley School Corp)	96.4		C	C
Tippecanoe Valley High School (Tippecanoe Valley School Corp)		106.2	A	A
Mentone Elementary School (Tippecanoe Valley School Corp)	107.5		B	B
Tippecanoe Valley Middle School (Tippecanoe Valley School Corp)	94.1		C	B
Pierceton Elementary School (Whitko Community School Corp)	84.3		F	D
South Whitley Elementary School (Whitko Community School Corp)	84.7		D	B
Whitko Jr/Sr High School (Whitko Community School Corp)	86.9	93.8	C	A
Prairie Heights Elementary School (Prairie Heights Community Sch Corp)	97.3		C	C
Prairie Heights Middle School (Prairie Heights Community Sch Corp)	97.8		D	B
Prairie Heights Sr High School (Prairie Heights Community Sch Corp)		117.2	A	A
Westview Jr-Sr High School (Westview School Corporation)	120.6	131.9	A	A
Topeka Elementary School (Westview School Corporation)	111.9		B	A
Westview Elementary School (Westview School Corporation)	102.1		B	B
Meadowview Elementary School (Westview School Corporation)	109.9		A	A
Shipshewana-Scott Elementary Sch (Westview School Corporation)	90.6		C	B
Lakeland High School (Lakeland School Corporation)		79.5	B	B
Parkside Elementary School (Lakeland School Corporation)	108.8		C	B
Wolcott Mills Elementary School (Lakeland School Corporation)	96		D	D
Lakeland Middle School (Lakeland School Corporation)	91.4		D	D
Lima-Brighton Elementary (Lakeland School Corporation)	84.8		D	C
Jane Ball Elementary School (Hanover Community School Corp)	92.8		C	A
Lincoln Elementary School (Hanover Community School Corp)	83.1		C	A
Hanover Central Middle School (Hanover Community School Corp)	103.5		B	A
Hanover Central High School (Hanover Community School Corp)		97.9	B	B
River Forest High School (River Forest Community Sch Corp)		93.2	C	B
Henry S Evans Elementary School (River Forest Community Sch Corp)	100.6		C	C
River Forest Middle School (River Forest Community Sch Corp)	94.1		F	D
John I Meister Elementary School (River Forest Community Sch Corp)	109.9		B	B
Merrillville High School (Merrillville Community School Corp)		86.9	B	B
Pierce Middle School (Merrillville Community School Corp)	88.5		D	C
Merrillville Intermediate School (Merrillville Community School Corp)	105.9		C	B
Henry P Fieler Elementary School (Merrillville Community School Corp)	77.8		F	C
Homer Iddings Elementary School (Merrillville Community School Corp)	92.5		D	B
Edgar L Miller Elementary School (Merrillville Community School Corp)	104.1		C	B
John Wood Elementary School (Merrillville Community School Corp)	128.5		A	A
Jonas E Salk Elementary School (Merrillville Community School Corp)	103.1		C	B
Michael Grimmer Middle School (Lake Central School Corporation)	90.8		C	B
Lake Central High School (Lake Central School Corporation)		124.1	A	A
Kolling Elementary School (Lake Central School Corporation)	114.4		A	A
Hal E Clark Middle School (Lake Central School Corporation)	108		B	B
George Bibich Elementary School (Lake Central School Corporation)	119.9		A	A
James H Watson Elementary School (Lake Central School Corporation)	129.1		A	A
Kahler Middle School (Lake Central School Corporation)	99.6		C	B
Protsman Elementary School (Lake Central School Corporation)	86.6		C	B
Homan Elementary School (Lake Central School Corporation)	114		B	A
Peifer Elementary School (Lake Central School Corporation)	92.8		B	A
Oak Hill Elementary School (Tri-Creek School Corporation)	140.6		A	A
Lake Prairie Elementary School (Tri-Creek School Corporation)	110.6		B	A
Three Creeks Elem School (Tri-Creek School Corporation)	111.8		B	B
Lowell Middle School (Tri-Creek School Corporation)	103.2		C	B
Lowell Senior High School (Tri-Creek School Corporation)		93.7	B	A
Calumet New Tech High School (Lake Ridge New Tech Schools)		66	C	B
Longfellow New Tech Elementary Sch (Lake Ridge New Tech Schools)	79.3		F	C
Hosford Park New Tech Elementary (Lake Ridge New Tech Schools)	82.2		F	C
Lake Ridge New Tech Middle School (Lake Ridge New Tech Schools)	88		F	C
Robert Taft Middle School (Crown Point Community School Corp)	87.6		C	A
Douglas MacArthur Elem School (Crown Point Community School Corp)	133.1		A	A
Dwight D Eisenhower Elem School (Crown Point Community School Corp)	87		B	A
Winfield Elementary School (Crown Point Community School Corp)	106.6		A	A
Crown Point High School (Crown Point Community School Corp)		106.7	A	A
Lake Street Elementary School (Crown Point Community School Corp)	117.9		A	A
Solon Robinson Elementary School (Crown Point Community School Corp)	92.8		B	A
Jerry Ross Elementary School (Crown Point Community School Corp)	106.6		A	A
Timothy Ball Elementary School (Crown Point Community School Corp)	111.4		A	A
Colonel John Wheeler Middle School (Crown Point Community School Corp)	86.2		C	B
East Chicago Central High School (School City of East Chicago)			UNDER APPEAL	Appeal Pending
Benjamin Harrison Elementary Sch (School City of East Chicago)	85.7		F	F
Abraham Lincoln Elementary School (School City of East Chicago)	82.1		F	D
William McKinley Elementary School (School City of East Chicago)	94		F	F
George Washington Elementary Sch (School City of East Chicago)	85.7		F	D
Joseph Block Middle School (School City of East Chicago)	81.1		F	C
Thomas A Edison Jr-Sr HS (Lake Station Community Schools)	70.6	93.2	D	C
Alexander Hamilton Elementary Sch (Lake Station Community Schools)	110.4		C	B
Virgil I Bailey Elementary School (Lake Station Community Schools)	83.9		D	B
Banneker Elementary at Marquette (Gary Community School Corp)	72.9		F	F
Beveridge Elementary School (Gary Community School Corp)	86.4		F	F
Frankie W McCullough Acad for Girl (Gary Community School Corp)	71.5		F	F
Bailly Preparatory Academy (Gary Community School Corp)	98.1		D	D
Glen Park Acad for Excel in Lrn (Gary Community School Corp)	83.9		F	F
West Side Leadership Academy (Gary Community School Corp)			UNDER APPEAL	Appeal Pending
Daniel Hale Williams Elem Sch (Gary Community School Corp)	97.3		F	F
Gary Middle School (Gary Community School Corp)	62.4		D	No Grade
Beiriger Elementary School (Griffith Public Schools)	64.5		F	B
Griffith Senior High School (Griffith Public Schools)		98	B	A
Griffith Middle School (Griffith Public Schools)	82.2		D	B
Eldon Ready Elementary School (Griffith Public Schools)	100.4		C	A
Elsie Wadsworth Elementary School (Griffith Public Schools)	81.6		D	A
George Rogers Clark Md/HS (School City of Hammond)	85.8	112.4	C	C
Donald E Gavit Middle/High School (School City of Hammond)	102.7	91.9	C	C
Hammond High School (School City of Hammond)		74.8	C	B
Morton Senior High School (School City of Hammond)		71.8	C	C
Joseph Hess Elementary School (School City of Hammond)	95.3		D	C
Henry W Eggers Middle School (School City of Hammond)	84.2		F	F
Charles N Scott Middle School (School City of Hammond)	93		D	D
Columbia Elementary School (School City of Hammond)	89.4		F	D
Thomas A Edison Elementary School (School City of Hammond)	92.4		D	C
Benjamin Franklin Elementary Sch (School City of Hammond)	67.8		F	D
Warren G Harding Elementary School (School City of Hammond)	110.6		C	C
Washington Irving Elementary Sch (School City of Hammond)	72.3		F	D
Thomas Jefferson Elementary School (School City of Hammond)	85.4		D	B
Kenwood Elementary School (School City of Hammond)	102.2		D	B
Lafayette Elementary School (School City of Hammond)	97.1		D	B
Abraham Lincoln Elementary School (School City of Hammond)	99.7		D	C
Maywood Elementary School (School City of Hammond)	84.4		F	C
Morton Elementary School (School City of Hammond)	91.9		D	C
Lew Wallace Elementary School (School City of Hammond)	76		F	D
Frank O'Bannon Elementary School (School City of Hammond)	80		F	D
Highland High School (School Town of Highland)		90.6	B	B
Highland Middle School (School Town of Highland)	110.1		C	C
Judith Morton Johnston Elementary (School Town of Highland)	114.9		B	A
Mildred Merkley Elementary School (School Town of Highland)	88.7		D	B
Southridge Elementary School (School Town of Highland)	71		D	C
Allen J Warren Elementary School (School Town of Highland)	70.3		F	C
Hobart High School (School City of Hobart)		96.5	B	A
Hobart Middle School (School City of Hobart)	85.3		D	B
Early Learning Center-George Earle (School City of Hobart)	90.8		C	B
Liberty Elementary School (School City of Hobart)	79.2		D	B
Ridge View Elementary School (School City of Hobart)	97.4		C	C
Joan Martin Elementary School (School City of Hobart)	95		C	B
Munster High School (School Town of Munster)		132.3	A	A
Wilbur Wright Middle School (School Town of Munster)	103.3		B	A
James B Eads Elementary School (School Town of Munster)	104.1		B	B
Ernest R Elliott Elementary School (School Town of Munster)	100.1		B	B
Frank H Hammond Elementary School (School Town of Munster)	110.7		A	A
Whiting High School (School City of Whiting)		97.7	B	B
Whiting Middle School (School City of Whiting)	103.2		C	C
Nathan Hale Elementary School (School City of Whiting)	97.1		D	C
Prairie View Elementary School (New Prairie United School Corp)	91.6		C	A
New Prairie High School (New Prairie United School Corp)		101.8	A	A
Rolling Prairie Elementary School (New Prairie United School Corp)	100.9		C	B
New Prairie Middle School (New Prairie United School Corp)	97.4		C	B
Olive Township Elementary School (New Prairie United School Corp)	107		B	A
Westville Elementary School (M S D of New Durham Township)	89		D	B
Westville High School (M S D of New Durham Township)	105.7	93.7	B	B
LaCrosse School (Tri-Township Cons School Corp)		103.6	B	A
Wanatah School (Tri-Township Cons School Corp)	99.1		C	C
Coolspring Elementary School (Michigan City Area Schools)	108.2		C	C
Springfield Elementary School (Michigan City Area Schools)	106.8		C	C
Martin T Krueger Middle School (Michigan City Area Schools)	79.5		F	D
Barker Middle School (Michigan City Area Schools)	96.2		D	D
Michigan City High School (Michigan City Area Schools)		85.1	C	B
Edgewood Elementary School (Michigan City Area Schools)	75.1		F	C
Lake Hills Elementary School (Michigan City Area Schools)	109.9		C	C
Joy Elementary School (Michigan City Area Schools)	96.4		C	C
Knapp Elementary School (Michigan City Area Schools)	116		B	A
Marsh Elementary School (Michigan City Area Schools)	92.3		D	B
Pine Elementary School (Michigan City Area Schools)	89		D	D
South Central Elementary School (South Central Com School Corp)	82		D	B
South Central Jr-Sr High School (South Central Com School Corp)	98	141.4	A	A
Indian Trail Elementary School (LaPorte Community School Corp)	96.3		C	B
Kesling Middle School (LaPorte Community School Corp)	94		C	C
Kingsford Heights Elementary Sch (LaPorte Community School Corp)	91.6		C	B
Kingsbury Elementary School (LaPorte Community School Corp)	96		C	B
LaPorte High School (LaPorte Community School Corp)		75.5	B	B
Paul F Boston Middle School (LaPorte Community School Corp)	87.7		C	C
Hailmann Elementary School (LaPorte Community School Corp)	76.7		D	B
F Willard Crichfield Elementary (LaPorte Community School Corp)	86.6		C	A
Lincoln Elementary School (LaPorte Community School Corp)	87.6		D	C
Riley Elementary School (LaPorte Community School Corp)	110.1		B	A
Handley Elementary School (LaPorte Community School Corp)	80.4		D	D
Fayetteville Elementary School (North Lawrence Com Schools)	99.6		C	B
Needmore Elementary School (North Lawrence Com Schools)	91.4		C	C
Springville Elementary School (North Lawrence Com Schools)	63.6		F	D
Heltonville Elementary School (North Lawrence Com Schools)	94.3		D	B
Oolitic Middle School (North Lawrence Com Schools)	78.5		F	D
Dollens Elementary School (North Lawrence Com Schools)	96.3		C	C
Shawswick Elementary School (North Lawrence Com Schools)	92		C	B
Shawswick Middle School (North Lawrence Com Schools)	99.5		C	C
Bedford Middle School (North Lawrence Com Schools)	85		F	D
Lincoln Elementary School (North Lawrence Com Schools)	94.9		D	A
Bedford-North Lawrence High School (North Lawrence Com Schools)		87.6	B	B
Parkview Primary School (North Lawrence Com Schools)	84.9		D	C
Stalker Elementary School (North Lawrence Com Schools)	91.3		D	D
Parkview Intermediate School (North Lawrence Com Schools)	84.9		D	C
Burris Elementary School (Mitchell Community Schools)	99.1		C	C
Hatfield Elementary School (Mitchell Community Schools)	99.1		C	C
Mitchell Jr High School (Mitchell Community Schools)	101.8		C	C
Mitchell High School (Mitchell Community Schools)		87.1	B	B
Frankton Jr-Sr High School (Frankton-Lapel Community Schools)	109	71.4	B	B
Frankton Elementary School (Frankton-Lapel Community Schools)	90.6		D	C
Lapel Sr High School (Frankton-Lapel Community Schools)		95.7	B	A
Lapel Middle School (Frankton-Lapel Community Schools)	99.9		C	B
Lapel Elementary School (Frankton-Lapel Community Schools)	91.9		C	B
East Elementary School (South Madison Com Sch Corp)	97.6		B	B
Pendleton Heights High School (South Madison Com Sch Corp)		89.2	B	A
Pendleton Heights Middle School (South Madison Com Sch Corp)	107.8		B	A
Pendleton Elementary School (South Madison Com Sch Corp)	107.7		B	B
Maple Ridge Elementary School (South Madison Com Sch Corp)	109.1		B	B
Alexandria-Monroe High School (Alexandria Community School Corp)	69.5	112.8	C	B
Alexandria-Monroe Intermediate (Alexandria Community School Corp)	98.5		C	B
Alexandria-Monroe Elementary (Alexandria Community School Corp)	98.5		C	B
COMPASS Alternative School (Anderson Community School Corp)	38.8		F	No Grade
Anderson High School (Anderson Community School Corp)		81.5	B	B
Edgewood Elementary School (Anderson Community School Corp)	82		F	F
Tenth Street Elementary School (Anderson Community School Corp)	87.1		F	C
Valley Grove Elementary School (Anderson Community School Corp)	90.2		D	C
Highland Middle School (Anderson Community School Corp)	91.3		F	D
Eastside Elementary School (Anderson Community School Corp)	79.1		F	D
Anderson Elementary School (Anderson Community School Corp)	90.1		D	D
Erskine Elementary School (Anderson Community School Corp)	80.2		F	F
Elwood Jr-Sr High School (Elwood Community School Corp)	60.5	79.4	D	C
Elwood Intermediate School (Elwood Community School Corp)	82.3		F	C
Elwood Elementary School (Elwood Community School Corp)	82.3		F	C
Decatur Central High School (M S D Decatur Township)		79.1	B	B
Gold Academy (M S D Decatur Township)	74.6		F	C
Blue Academy (M S D Decatur Township)	77.7		F	C
Decatur Middle School (M S D Decatur Township)	65.5		F	F
Stephen Decatur Elementary School (M S D Decatur Township)	88.5		F	F
Valley Mills Elementary School (M S D Decatur Township)	74.1		F	C
Decatur Twp School for Excellence (M S D Decatur Township)		79.2	D	D
West Newton Elementary School (M S D Decatur Township)	82.4		D	B
Liberty Early Elementary School (M S D Decatur Township)	78.8		F	C
Franklin Central High School (Franklin Township Com Sch Corp)		83.4	B	A
South Creek Elementary (Franklin Township Com Sch Corp)	107.9		B	A
Franklin Township Middle Schl East (Franklin Township Com Sch Corp)	77.1		D	B
Franklin Township Middle Sch West (Franklin Township Com Sch Corp)	86.2		D	B
Thompson Crossing Elementary Sch (Franklin Township Com Sch Corp)	103.4		B	A
Mary Adams Elementary School (Franklin Township Com Sch Corp)	101		B	A
Acton Elementary School (Franklin Township Com Sch Corp)	98.8		A	A
Arlington Elementary School (Franklin Township Com Sch Corp)	94		C	B
Lillie Idella Kitley Elementary (Franklin Township Com Sch Corp)	95.3		C	C
Bunker Hill Elementary School (Franklin Township Com Sch Corp)	105.9		B	A
Lawrence Central High School (M S D Lawrence Township)		87.9	B	B
Lawrence North High School (M S D Lawrence Township)		94.4	B	B
Belzer Middle School (M S D Lawrence Township)	99.8		D	C
Brook Park Elementary School (M S D Lawrence Township)	77.1		F	F
Mary Evelyn Castle Elementary Sch (M S D Lawrence Township)	106.4		C	B
Early Learning Center (M S D Lawrence Township)	104.9		C	C
Crestview Elementary School (M S D Lawrence Township)	112.6		C	C
Amy Beverland Elementary (M S D Lawrence Township)	102.7		B	A
Harrison Hill Elementary School (M S D Lawrence Township)	93		F	D
Fall Creek Valley Middle School (M S D Lawrence Township)	76		F	C
Indian Creek Elementary School (M S D Lawrence Township)	113.7		C	C
Forest Glen Elementary School (M S D Lawrence Township)	121.7		A	A
Winding Ridge Elementary School (M S D Lawrence Township)	89.2		F	C
Oaklandon Elementary School (M S D Lawrence Township)	91.9		D	D
Skiles Test Elementary School (M S D Lawrence Township)	101.4		D	C
Sunnyside Elementary School (M S D Lawrence Township)	110.2		C	C
Perry Meridian High School (Perry Township Schools)		89.8	B	B
Southport High School (Perry Township Schools)		66.7	C	B
Southport 6th Grade Academy (Perry Township Schools)	111.9		B	A
Perry Meridian 6th Grade Academy (Perry Township Schools)	95.3		C	B
Southport Middle School (Perry Township Schools)	101		C	B
Perry Meridian Middle School (Perry Township Schools)	113		B	B
William Henry Burkhart Elementary (Perry Township Schools)	112.2		B	A
Mary Bryan Elementary School (Perry Township Schools)	115.1		B	B
Clinton Young Elementary School (Perry Township Schools)	110.9		C	C
Glenns Valley Elementary School (Perry Township Schools)	108.2		B	A
Abraham Lincoln Elementary School (Perry Township Schools)	118.1		B	B
Douglas MacArthur Elementary Sch (Perry Township Schools)	114.5		B	A
Homecroft Elementary School (Perry Township Schools)	126.4		A	A
Southport Elementary School (Perry Township Schools)	126.6		A	A
Winchester Village Elementary (Perry Township Schools)	98		C	B
Jeremiah Gray Elementary School (Perry Township Schools)	86.5		D	B
Rosa Parks Elementary School (Perry Township Schools)	120.5		A	A
Fishback Creek Public Academy (M S D Pike Township)	101.4		C	B
Deer Run Elementary (M S D Pike Township)	108.4		D	B
Pike High School (M S D Pike Township)		116.6	A	A
College Park Elementary School (M S D Pike Township)	112.3		C	B
Lincoln Middle School (M S D Pike Township)	80.7		F	D
Guion Creek Middle School (M S D Pike Township)	80.7		F	D
Central Elementary School (M S D Pike Township)	77.6		F	D
Eagle Creek Elementary School (M S D Pike Township)	80.3		D	B
Eastbrook Elementary School (M S D Pike Township)	93.7		D	C
Guion Creek Elementary School (M S D Pike Township)	98.7		C	B
Snacks Crossing Elementary School (M S D Pike Township)	94.1		D	C
New Augusta Public Academy - South (M S D Pike Township)	100.4		D	C
New Augusta Public Academy - North (M S D Pike Township)	93.1		D	C
Warren Central High School (M S D Warren Township)		84.8	C	B
Creston Middle School (M S D Warren Township)	90.7		F	D
Stonybrook Middle School (M S D Warren Township)	94.4		D	D
Raymond Park Middle School (M S D Warren Township)	103.4		D	C
Eastridge Elementary School (M S D Warren Township)	102.5		D	C
Hawthorne Elementary School (M S D Warren Township)	132.3		B	B
Grassy Creek Elementary School (M S D Warren Township)	113.6		B	A
Lakeside Elementary School (M S D Warren Township)	84.1		F	D
Lowell Elementary School (M S D Warren Township)	105.4		C	C
Pleasant Run Elementary School (M S D Warren Township)	87.7		D	C
Sunny Heights Elementary School (M S D Warren Township)	91		F	F
Brookview Elementary School (M S D Warren Township)	104.1		C	B
Liberty Park Elementary School (M S D Warren Township)	123.5		C	A
Creston Intermediate Academy (M S D Warren Township)	93.8		D	D
Stonybrook Intermediate Academy (M S D Warren Township)	84.5		F	D
Raymond Park Intermediate (M S D Warren Township)	98.5		D	D
Allisonville Elementary School (M S D Washington Township)	94.3		C	B
Crooked Creek Elementary School (M S D Washington Township)	89.6		C	B
Greenbriar Elementary School (M S D Washington Township)	87.5		F	C
John Strange Elementary School (M S D Washington Township)	114.3		B	A
Nora Elementary School (M S D Washington Township)	108.2		C	B
Spring Mill Elementary School (M S D Washington Township)	97.7		C	C
Fox Hill Elementary School (M S D Washington Township)	103.1		C	C
Eastwood Middle School (M S D Washington Township)	107.9		B	B
Northview Middle School (M S D Washington Township)	108.5		C	C
Westlane Middle School (M S D Washington Township)	100		D	D
North Central High School (M S D Washington Township)		92.9	B	B
Ben Davis High School (M S D Wayne Township)		71.7	B	B
Ben Davis Ninth Grade Center (M S D Wayne Township)			No Grade	No Grade
Chapel Hill 7th & 8th Grade Center (M S D Wayne Township)	89.5		F	C
Lynhurst 7th & 8th Grade Center (M S D Wayne Township)	94		D	C
Maplewood Elementary School (M S D Wayne Township)	79.8		F	D
Chapel Glen Elementary School (M S D Wayne Township)	80.4		F	D
Garden City Elementary School (M S D Wayne Township)	91.5		D	C
McClelland Elementary School (M S D Wayne Township)	110.9		C	B
Rhoades Elementary School (M S D Wayne Township)	87.2		F	D
Robey Elementary School (M S D Wayne Township)	88.1		D	B
North Wayne Elementary School (M S D Wayne Township)	74.3		F	D
Stout Field Elementary School (M S D Wayne Township)	92.2		D	B
Westlake Elementary School (M S D Wayne Township)	88		D	C
Chapelwood Elementary School (M S D Wayne Township)	99.6		C	B
Achieve Virtual Education Academy (M S D Wayne Township)			F	D
Bridgeport Elementary School (M S D Wayne Township)	111.3		C	B
Ben Davis University High School (M S D Wayne Township)		80.5	B	B
Beech Grove Sr High School (Beech Grove City Schools)		65.2	C	B
Beech Grove Middle School (Beech Grove City Schools)	96.5		D	D
Central Elementary School (Beech Grove City Schools)	94		D	D
South Grove Intermediate School (Beech Grove City Schools)	94		D	C
Hornet Park Elementary School (Beech Grove City Schools)	94		D	D
Impact Academy (Indianapolis Public Schools)			No Grade	No Grade
Thrival Academy (Indianapolis Public Schools)			No Grade	No Grade
Arsenal Technical High School (Indianapolis Public Schools)		71.7	C	No Grade
Arlington Community Middle School (Indianapolis Public Schools)	61.4		D	No Grade
HW Longfellow Med/STEM Magnet Midl (Indianapolis Public Schools)	73.3		C	A
Crispus Attucks High School (Indianapolis Public Schools)		79.1	C	No Grade
Shortridge High School (Indianapolis Public Schools)		91.9	A	A
Cold Spring School (Indianapolis Public Schools)	91.4		A	A
Thomas D Gregg School 15 (Indianapolis Public Schools)	102		A	A
Northwest Community Middle School (Indianapolis Public Schools)	68.8		F	F
James A Garfield School 31 (Indianapolis Public Schools)	75.1		F	D
Eleanor Skillen School 34 (Indianapolis Public Schools)	65.6		F	F
Center for Inquiry School 70 (Indianapolis Public Schools)	90.5		A	A
William McKinley School 39 (Indianapolis Public Schools)	116.1		C	C
James Whitcomb Riley School 43 (Indianapolis Public Schools)	69.6		F	F
Riverside School 44 (Indianapolis Public Schools)	78		F	A
Daniel Webster School 46 (Indianapolis Public Schools)	76.2		F	D
Louis B Russell Jr School 48 (Indianapolis Public Schools)	75.3		F	F
William Penn School 49 (Indianapolis Public Schools)	75		F	D
James Russell Lowell School 51 (Indianapolis Public Schools)	67.9		F	F
Brookside School 54 (Indianapolis Public Schools)	61.5		F	F
IPS/ Butler Eliza Blaker School 55 (Indianapolis Public Schools)	64.2		F	B
Francis W Parker School 56 (Indianapolis Public Schools)	71.6		F	D
George W Julian School 57 (Indianapolis Public Schools)	73.9		F	D
Ralph Waldo Emerson School 58 (Indianapolis Public Schools)	59.7		F	D
IPS/ Butler Lab @ William Bell 60 (Indianapolis Public Schools)	81		D	C
Raymond F Brandes School 65 (Indianapolis Public Schools)	88.2		F	D
Stephen Foster School 67 (Indianapolis Public Schools)	62.6		F	F
Joyce Kilmer School 69 (Indianapolis Public Schools)	86.6		B	B
Edison School of the Arts 47 (Indianapolis Public Schools)	104.8		A	A
Theodore Potter School 74 (Indianapolis Public Schools)	68.8		F	C
Merle Sidener Gifted Academy (Indianapolis Public Schools)	89.3		B	A
Carl Wilde School 79 (Indianapolis Public Schools)	82.8		F	D
Christian Park School 82 (Indianapolis Public Schools)	68.4		F	F
Floro Torrence School 83 (Indianapolis Public Schools)	79.1		F	D
George Washington Carver School 87 (Indianapolis Public Schools)	99.3		C	B
Anna Brochhausen School 88 (Indianapolis Public Schools)	91.7		F	F
Ernie Pyle School 90 (Indianapolis Public Schools)	97.2		D	B
Rousseau McClellan School 91 (Indianapolis Public Schools)	86.3		D	D
George H Fisher School 93 (Indianapolis Public Schools)	115.7		C	A
Meredith Nicholson School 96 (Indianapolis Public Schools)	104.3		D	D
Emma Donnan Elementary School (Indianapolis Public Schools)	104.6		D	A
H L Harshman Middle School (Indianapolis Public Schools)	97.2		F	F
Phalen at Francis Scott Key 103 (Indianapolis Public Schools)	78.8		F	A
Charles Warren Fairbanks Sch 105 (Indianapolis Public Schools)	77.9		F	F
Robert Lee Frost School 106 (Indianapolis Public Schools)	84		F	F
Lew Wallace School 107 (Indianapolis Public Schools)	88.7		F	D
Jonathan Jennings School 109 (Indianapolis Public Schools)	69.3		F	D
Paul I Miller School 114 (Indianapolis Public Schools)	90.9		F	D
George S Buck School 94 (Indianapolis Public Schools)	75.3		F	F
Arlington Woods School 99 (Indianapolis Public Schools)	59.5		F	F
Center For Inquiry School 2 (Indianapolis Public Schools)	104.3		C	C
George Washington High School (Indianapolis Public Schools)		68	D	No Grade
Center for Inquiry School 84 (Indianapolis Public Schools)	111		A	A
Clarence Farrington School 61 (Indianapolis Public Schools)	77		F	F
Center for Inquiry School 27 (Indianapolis Public Schools)	81.8		F	C
Frederick Douglass School 19 (Indianapolis Public Schools)	69.2		D	D
Speedway Junior High School (School Town of Speedway)	123.5		A	A
Speedway Senior High School (School Town of Speedway)		127.2	A	A
James A Allison Elementary Sch 3 (School Town of Speedway)	88		C	B
Carl G Fisher Elementary School 1 (School Town of Speedway)	94.7		C	A
Arthur C Newby Elementary School 2 (School Town of Speedway)	120		A	A
Frank H Wheeler Elementary Sch 4 (School Town of Speedway)	97		C	A
Culver Community Middle/High Sch (Culver Community Schools Corp)	87	118.2	C	B
Culver Elementary School (Culver Community Schools Corp)	79.9		D	C
Argos Community Elementary (Argos Community Schools)	112.2		B	B
Argos Comm Jr-Sr High School (Argos Community Schools)	104	100.4	B	B
Bremen Senior High School (Bremen Public Schools)		90.8	B	A
Bremen Elementary/Middle School (Bremen Public Schools)	84.8		D	B
Menominee Elementary School (Plymouth Community School Corp)	80.8		F	C
Plymouth High School (Plymouth Community School Corp)		96.3	B	B
Lincoln Junior High School (Plymouth Community School Corp)	92.2		D	C
Riverside Intermediate (Plymouth Community School Corp)	106.5		B	B
Jefferson Elementary School (Plymouth Community School Corp)	91.7		D	D
Washington Discovery Academy (Plymouth Community School Corp)	142.4		A	A
Webster Elementary School (Plymouth Community School Corp)	72.7		F	D
Triton Elementary School (Triton School Corporation)	104.3		C	B
Triton Jr-Sr High School (Triton School Corporation)	114.1	125.3	A	A
Shoals Community High School (Shoals Community School Corp)		108.6	B	B
Shoals Community Elementary School (Shoals Community School Corp)	71.2		F	B
Shoals Middle School (Shoals Community School Corp)	59.2		F	B
Loogootee Elementary School (Loogootee Community Sch Corp)	66.8		D	A
Loogootee Middle School (Loogootee Community Sch Corp)	79		D	B
Loogootee High School (Loogootee Community Sch Corp)		92	B	B
Pipe Creek Elementary School (Maconaquah School Corp)	80.8		D	D
Maconaquah High School (Maconaquah School Corp)		113.1	A	A
Maconaquah Middle School (Maconaquah School Corp)	99.8		D	C
Maconaquah Elementary School (Maconaquah School Corp)	80.8		D	D
North Miami Middle/High School (North Miami Community Schools)	79.3	70.2	C	B
North Miami Elementary School (North Miami Community Schools)	86		D	B
Oak Hill Junior High School (Oak Hill United School Corp)	110.5		C	B
Swayzee Elementary School (Oak Hill United School Corp)	113.4		B	B
Oak Hill High School (Oak Hill United School Corp)		98.5	B	A
Converse Elementary School (Oak Hill United School Corp)	80.3		D	B
Sweetser Elementary School (Oak Hill United School Corp)	80.3		D	B
Peru High School (Peru Community Schools)		74.7	B	B
Peru Junior High School (Peru Community Schools)	80.7		F	B
Blair Pointe Upper Elementary (Peru Community Schools)	91.1		D	B
Elmwood Primary Learning Center (Peru Community Schools)	91.1		D	B
Edgewood High School (Richland-Bean Blossom C S C)		86.3	B	B
Edgewood Junior High School (Richland-Bean Blossom C S C)	103.5		B	A
Edgewood Primary School (Richland-Bean Blossom C S C)	96.6		C	B
Edgewood Intermediate School (Richland-Bean Blossom C S C)	96.6		C	B
Unionville Elementary School (Monroe County Community Sch Corp)	91.2		B	A
Lakeview Elementary School (Monroe County Community Sch Corp)	99.1		C	B
Grandview Elementary School (Monroe County Community Sch Corp)	82.4		F	C
Highland Park Elementary School (Monroe County Community Sch Corp)	95.6		C	C
Summit Elementary School (Monroe County Community Sch Corp)	78.8		D	B
Bloomington High School South (Monroe County Community Sch Corp)		104.6	A	A
Bloomington High School North (Monroe County Community Sch Corp)		92.3	A	A
Tri-North Middle School (Monroe County Community Sch Corp)	107.1		B	B
Lora L Batchelor Middle School (Monroe County Community Sch Corp)	96		C	B
Binford Elementary School (Monroe County Community Sch Corp)	87.2		C	A
Arlington Heights Elementary Sch (Monroe County Community Sch Corp)	94.1		C	A
Childs Elementary School (Monroe County Community Sch Corp)	104.9		A	A
Clear Creek Elementary School (Monroe County Community Sch Corp)	71.3		F	C
Fairview Elementary School (Monroe County Community Sch Corp)	95.7		D	C
The Acad of Sci & Entrepreneurship (Monroe County Community Sch Corp)		112.8	A	A
Marlin Elementary School (Monroe County Community Sch Corp)	105.1		B	A
Rogers Elementary School (Monroe County Community Sch Corp)	87.2		C	A
Bloomington Graduation School (Monroe County Community Sch Corp)			C	C
Jackson Creek Middle School (Monroe County Community Sch Corp)	100.6		B	B
Templeton Elementary School (Monroe County Community Sch Corp)	89.3		D	C
University Elementary School (Monroe County Community Sch Corp)	86.3		C	A
Pleasant Hill Elementary School (North Montgomery Com Sch Corp)	92.4		C	B
Lester B Sommer Elementary School (North Montgomery Com Sch Corp)	123.8		B	A
Northridge Middle School (North Montgomery Com Sch Corp)	97.3		C	B
Sugar Creek Elementary School (North Montgomery Com Sch Corp)	121.5		B	B
North Montgomery High School (North Montgomery Com Sch Corp)		75.6	B	A
Ladoga Elementary School (South Montgomery Com Sch Corp)	98.3		B	A
Southmont Sr High School (South Montgomery Com Sch Corp)		77.1	B	A
Walnut Elementary School (South Montgomery Com Sch Corp)	108.7		B	A
Southmont Jr High School (South Montgomery Com Sch Corp)	73.7		D	B
New Market Elementary School (South Montgomery Com Sch Corp)	96.6		C	A
Crawfordsville Sr High School (Crawfordsville Community Schools)		80	B	B
Crawfordsville Middle School (Crawfordsville Community Schools)	88.9		D	C
Mollie B Hoover Elementary School (Crawfordsville Community Schools)	81.2		F	C
Laura Hose Elementary School (Crawfordsville Community Schools)	81.2		D	C
Meredith Nicholson Elementary Sch (Crawfordsville Community Schools)	81.2		D	C
Monrovia Middle School (Monroe-Gregg School District)	89.2		D	C
Monrovia High School (Monroe-Gregg School District)		101.1	A	A
Monrovia Elementary School (Monroe-Gregg School District)	104.8		C	B
Eminence Jr-Sr High School (Eminence Community School Corp)	64.9	93.1	D	C
Eminence Elementary School (Eminence Community School Corp)	54.9		F	C
Green Township Elementary School (M S D Martinsville Schools)	80.4		D	C
Martinsville High School (M S D Martinsville Schools)		83.2	B	A
John R. Wooden Middle School (M S D Martinsville Schools)	92		A	A
Bell Intermediate Academy (M S D Martinsville Schools)	82.1		B	A
Brooklyn STEM Academy (M S D Martinsville Schools)	90.1		C	B
Centerton Elementary School (M S D Martinsville Schools)	119.3		A	A
South Elementary School (M S D Martinsville Schools)	84		D	B
Charles L Smith Arts Academy (M S D Martinsville Schools)	93.8		C	B
Paragon Elementary School (M S D Martinsville Schools)	111.5		B	B
Poston Road Elementary School (M S D Martinsville Schools)	131.7		A	A
Mooresville High School (Mooresville Con School Corp)		82.3	B	B
Paul Hadley Middle School (Mooresville Con School Corp)	81.1		D	B
Neil Armstrong Elementary School (Mooresville Con School Corp)	107.6		C	B
Newby Memorial Elementary School (Mooresville Con School Corp)	104.4		C	A
North Madison Elementary School (Mooresville Con School Corp)	110.6		B	B
Northwood Elementary School (Mooresville Con School Corp)	95.8		C	B
Waverly Elementary School (Mooresville Con School Corp)	94.4		C	A
Morocco Elementary School (North Newton School Corp)	89.5		C	C
Lake Village Elementary School (North Newton School Corp)	97		C	B
Lincoln Elementary School (North Newton School Corp)	84.9		D	C
North Newton Jr-Sr High School (North Newton School Corp)	82	106.2	C	C
South Newton Senior High School (South Newton School Corp)		97.8	A	A
South Newton Elementary School (South Newton School Corp)	110.9		B	B
South Newton Middle School (South Newton School Corp)	115.3		B	B
Central Noble Primary School (Central Noble Com School Corp)	85		D	C
Central Noble Junior Senior HS (Central Noble Com School Corp)	83.3	86.9	C	B
Central Noble Elementary School (Central Noble Com School Corp)	87.9		D	D
Avilla Elementary School (East Noble School Corporation)	81.3		D	C
East Noble High School (East Noble School Corporation)		109	A	A
East Noble Middle School (East Noble School Corporation)	89.6		D	C
Rome City Elementary School (East Noble School Corporation)	91.6		D	C
North Side Elementary School (East Noble School Corporation)	54.4		F	C
South Side Elementary School (East Noble School Corporation)	76.4		F	C
Wayne Center Elem School (East Noble School Corporation)	81.8		D	C
West Noble High School (West Noble School Corporation)		70.7	C	B
West Noble Primary School (West Noble School Corporation)	84		D	B
West Noble Middle School (West Noble School Corporation)	90.2		D	B
West Noble Elementary School (West Noble School Corporation)	84		D	B
Ohio County Elementary School (Rising Sun-Ohio Co Com)	95.4		C	B
Ohio County Middle School (Rising Sun-Ohio Co Com)	99		C	A
Rising Sun High School (Rising Sun-Ohio Co Com)		112.3	A	A
Orleans Jr-Sr High School (Orleans Community Schools)	88.3	132.8	B	B
Orleans Elementary School (Orleans Community Schools)	98.2		C	B
Paoli Jr & Sr High School (Paoli Community School Corp)	113.9	89.3	B	B
Throop Elementary School (Paoli Community School Corp)	93.6		C	C
Springs Valley Comm High School (Springs Valley Com School Corp)	92.6	95.2	C	C
Springs Valley Elementary School (Springs Valley Com School Corp)	104.8		B	B
Owen Valley Middle School (Spencer-Owen Community Schools)	99.8		C	C
Patricksburg Elementary School (Spencer-Owen Community Schools)	96.1		D	D
Gosport Elementary School (Spencer-Owen Community Schools)	109.5		B	A
Owen Valley Community High School (Spencer-Owen Community Schools)		65.2	B	B
Spencer Elementary School (Spencer-Owen Community Schools)	109.8		C	C
McCormick's Creek Elementary Sch (Spencer-Owen Community Schools)	104.1		C	B
Rosedale Elementary School (Southwest Parke Com Sch Corp)	97.2		C	C
Riverton Parke Jr-Sr High School (Southwest Parke Com Sch Corp)	76.7	109.9	C	B
Montezuma Elementary School (Southwest Parke Com Sch Corp)	84.9		D	C
Perry Central Elementary School (Perry Central Com Schools Corp)	86.1		C	B
Perry Central Jr-Sr High School (Perry Central Com Schools Corp)	69.4	99.7	C	A
Cannelton Elementary & High School (Cannelton City Schools)	52.6	69.7	F	D
Tell City Jr-Sr High School (Tell City-Troy Twp School Corp)	119	96.6	A	A
William Tell Elementary School (Tell City-Troy Twp School Corp)	91.9		C	C
Rockville Elementary School (North Central Parke Comm Schl Corp)	82.3		D	C
Turkey Run Elementary School (North Central Parke Comm Schl Corp)	97.8		C	C
Parke Heritage Middle School (North Central Parke Comm Schl Corp)	77.4		C	No Grade
Parke Heritage High School (North Central Parke Comm Schl Corp)		106.8	A	A
Pike Central High School (Pike County School Corp)		87.3	B	B
Pike Central Middle School (Pike County School Corp)	85.7		D	C
Winslow Elementary School (Pike County School Corp)	87.8		D	C
Petersburg Elementary School (Pike County School Corp)	85.2		D	C
Hebron High School (M S D Boone Township)		94.6	A	A
Hebron Middle School (M S D Boone Township)	111.9		C	B
Hebron Elementary School (M S D Boone Township)	64.7		F	C
Jackson Elementary School (Duneland School Corporation)	99.5		B	A
Brummitt Elementary School (Duneland School Corporation)	79		C	B
Liberty Intermediate School (Duneland School Corporation)	87.1		C	A
Liberty Elementary School (Duneland School Corporation)	98.9		B	A
Chesterton Senior High School (Duneland School Corporation)		85.7	B	A
Westchester Intermediate School (Duneland School Corporation)	95.4		C	C
Bailly Elementary School (Duneland School Corporation)	95.1		C	B
Chesterton Middle School (Duneland School Corporation)	78.2		D	C
Newton Yost Elementary School (Duneland School Corporation)	88.3		C	B
Morgan Township Middle/High School (East Porter County School Corp)	96.8	114.8	B	A
Morgan Township Elementary School (East Porter County School Corp)	108.7		A	A
Kouts Middle/High School (East Porter County School Corp)	94.4	90.5	B	B
Kouts Elementary School (East Porter County School Corp)	112		B	B
Washington Twp Middle/High School (East Porter County School Corp)	99.6	127.1	A	A
Washington Twp Elementary School (East Porter County School Corp)	80.5		C	B
Boone Grove Elementary School (Porter Township School Corp)	85		D	C
Boone Grove High School (Porter Township School Corp)		120.7	A	A
Boone Grove Middle School (Porter Township School Corp)	89		D	B
Porter Lakes Elementary School (Porter Township School Corp)	85		D	C
Wheeler High School (Union Township School Corp)		106.2	A	A
Union Township Middle School (Union Township School Corp)	101.7		B	A
Union Center Elementary School (Union Township School Corp)	78.3		C	A
John Simatovich Elementary School (Union Township School Corp)	92.3		B	B
Portage High School (Portage Township Schools)		93.2	B	B
Wallace Aylesworth Elementary (Portage Township Schools)	86.9		D	B
William Fegely Middle School (Portage Township Schools)	91.8		D	B
Crisman Elementary School (Portage Township Schools)	80.5		D	B
Central Elementary School (Portage Township Schools)	78		D	C
Ethel R Jones Elementary School (Portage Township Schools)	87.9		D	B
Willowcreek Middle School (Portage Township Schools)	86.3		D	B
Rowena Kyle Elementary School (Portage Township Schools)	70.5		F	B
Paul Saylor Elementary School (Portage Township Schools)	78.7		F	B
George L Myers Elementary School (Portage Township Schools)	86.9		D	B
South Haven Elementary School (Portage Township Schools)	89.1		D	B
Valparaiso High School (Valparaiso Community Schools)		115.3	A	A
Benjamin Franklin Middle School (Valparaiso Community Schools)	102.3		B	A
Thomas Jefferson Middle School (Valparaiso Community Schools)	102.1		B	A
Thomas Jefferson Elementary School (Valparaiso Community Schools)	100.7		A	A
Central Elementary School (Valparaiso Community Schools)	89.1		C	A
Flint Lake Elementary School (Valparaiso Community Schools)	82.7		C	A
Cooks Corners Elementary School (Valparaiso Community Schools)	125		A	A
Heavilin Elementary School (Valparaiso Community Schools)	104.4		A	A
Memorial Elementary School (Valparaiso Community Schools)	93.2		B	B
Northview Elementary School (Valparaiso Community Schools)	92.2		B	A
Parkview Elementary School (Valparaiso Community Schools)	92.2		C	A
Mount Vernon High School (M S D Mount Vernon)		102.6	A	A
Mount Vernon Jr High School (M S D Mount Vernon)	89.5		C	B
West Elementary School (M S D Mount Vernon)	93.2		C	A
Farmersville Elementary School (M S D Mount Vernon)	102.6		A	A
Marrs Elementary School (M S D Mount Vernon)	99.9		B	A
North Posey Junior High School (M S D North Posey Co Schools)	107.7		B	B
North Posey High School (M S D North Posey Co Schools)		81.5	B	A
North Elementary School (M S D North Posey Co Schools)	97.8		C	C
South Terrace Elementary (M S D North Posey Co Schools)	101.6		B	A
Eastern Pulaski Elementary School (Eastern Pulaski Community Sch Corp)	63.4		F	C
Winamac Community Middle School (Eastern Pulaski Community Sch Corp)	100.8		C	B
Winamac Community High School (Eastern Pulaski Community Sch Corp)		109.7	A	A
West Central Senior High School (West Central School Corp)		114.9	B	B
West Central Elementary School (West Central School Corp)	92.7		D	D
West Central Middle School (West Central School Corp)	82.8		D	C
Central Elementary School (South Putnam Community Schools)	81.1		D	B
South Putnam Middle School (South Putnam Community Schools)	104.1		C	C
Fillmore Elementary School (South Putnam Community Schools)	112.3		B	A
South Putnam High School (South Putnam Community Schools)		90.3	B	B
Bainbridge Elementary School (North Putnam Community Schools)	100.7		C	C
Roachdale Elementary School (North Putnam Community Schools)	100.6		B	B
North Putnam Middle School (North Putnam Community Schools)	120.9		B	B
North Putnam Sr High School (North Putnam Community Schools)		103	A	A
Cloverdale High School (Cloverdale Community Schools)		118.5	A	A
Cloverdale Elementary School (Cloverdale Community Schools)	83.8		D	B
Cloverdale Middle School (Cloverdale Community Schools)	105.2		C	B
Greencastle Senior High School (Greencastle Community School Corp)		89.6	B	B
Greencastle Middle School (Greencastle Community School Corp)	105.1		C	C
Tzouanakis Intermediate School (Greencastle Community School Corp)	70		F	C
Martha J Ridpath Elementary School (Greencastle Community School Corp)	70		F	C
Deer Meadow Primary School (Greencastle Community School Corp)	70		F	C
Union Elementary School (Union School Corporation)	81.6		F	F
Union Junior & High School (Union School Corporation)	89.6	88.2	D	D
Indiana Digital Elementary (Union School Corporation)	69.3		D	No Grade
Indiana Digital JR and High School (Union School Corporation)	66	73.8	C	No Grade
Indiana Digital Alternative School (Union School Corporation)			No Grade	No Grade
Randolph Southern Elementary Sch (Randolph Southern School Corp)	106.8		B	A
Randolph Southern Jr-Sr High Sch (Randolph Southern School Corp)	83.8	103.6	C	B
Monroe Central Jr-Sr High School (Monroe Central School Corp)	108.2	86.1	B	B
Monroe Central Elementary School (Monroe Central School Corp)	111.1		B	A
Winchester Community High School (Randolph Central School Corp)		77.5	B	B
Lee L Driver Middle School (Randolph Central School Corp)	83.6		D	C
O R Baker Elementary School (Randolph Central School Corp)	98.1		D	B
Willard Elementary School (Randolph Central School Corp)	98.1		D	B
Deerfield Elementary School (Randolph Central School Corp)	132.6		A	A
Union City Community Jr/Sr High (Randolph Eastern School Corp)	90.2	92.2	C	C
North Side Elementary School (Randolph Eastern School Corp)	124.3		A	A
South Ripley Junior High School (South Ripley Com Sch Corp)	97.2		C	A
South Ripley Elementary School (South Ripley Com Sch Corp)	99.3		C	A
South Ripley High School (South Ripley Com Sch Corp)		57.1	B	B
Batesville High School (Batesville Community School Corp)		116.1	A	A
Batesville Primary School (Batesville Community School Corp)	83.7		D	B
Batesville Middle School (Batesville Community School Corp)	101.9		B	A
Batesville Intermediate School (Batesville Community School Corp)	83.7		D	B
Jac-Cen-Del MS/HS (Jac-Cen-Del Community Sch Corp)	95.2	89.8	B	A
Jac-Cen-Del Elementary School (Jac-Cen-Del Community Sch Corp)	68.6		F	B
Milan High School (Milan Community Schools)		99.7	B	A
Milan Middle School (Milan Community Schools)	94.1		D	B
Milan Elementary School (Milan Community Schools)	84.3		D	B
Milan Intermediate School (Milan Community Schools)	64.2		D	B
Milroy Elementary School (Rush County Schools)	107.7		B	B
Arlington Elementary School (Rush County Schools)	112.1		B	A
Rushville Elementary School East (Rush County Schools)	117.3		A	A
Rushville Elementary School West (Rush County Schools)	86.6		D	C
Rushville Consolidated High School (Rush County Schools)		114.9	A	A
Benjamin Rush Middle School (Rush County Schools)	94.9		C	C
Harold C Urey Middle School (John Glenn School Corporation)	86.3		D	B
John Glenn High School (John Glenn School Corporation)		133.9	A	A
North Liberty School (John Glenn School Corporation)	108.6		B	A
Walkerton Elementary School (John Glenn School Corporation)	109.2		B	A
Walt Disney Elementary School (Penn-Harris-Madison School Corp)	110.9		B	B
Prairie Vista Elementary School (Penn-Harris-Madison School Corp)	115.6		A	A
Mary Frank Harris Elementary Sch (Penn-Harris-Madison School Corp)	96.1		B	B
Schmucker Middle School (Penn-Harris-Madison School Corp)	97.1		C	B
Virgil I Grissom Middle School (Penn-Harris-Madison School Corp)	90		D	C
Madison Elementary School (Penn-Harris-Madison School Corp)	86.6		C	B
Penn High School (Penn-Harris-Madison School Corp)		104	A	A
Elm Road Elementary School (Penn-Harris-Madison School Corp)	116		A	A
Elsie Rogers Elementary School (Penn-Harris-Madison School Corp)	83		D	A
Discovery Middle School (Penn-Harris-Madison School Corp)	101.5		B	A
Moran Elementary School (Penn-Harris-Madison School Corp)	121.3		A	A
Bittersweet Elementary School (Penn-Harris-Madison School Corp)	112.5		A	A
Horizon Elementary School (Penn-Harris-Madison School Corp)	114.1		A	A
Meadow's Edge Elementary School (Penn-Harris-Madison School Corp)	89.1		C	C
Northpoint Elementary School (Penn-Harris-Madison School Corp)	108.1		A	A
Fred J Hums Elementary School (School City of Mishawaka)	88.6		D	C
Mishawaka High School (School City of Mishawaka)		82.6	B	B
John J Young Middle School (School City of Mishawaka)	93		D	C
Battell Elementary School (School City of Mishawaka)	97.5		D	C
Beiger Elementary School (School City of Mishawaka)	95.3		D	D
Liberty Elementary School (School City of Mishawaka)	104.2		D	C
Emmons Elementary School (School City of Mishawaka)	68.8		F	D
Lasalle Elementary School (School City of Mishawaka)	98.6		D	D
Twin Branch Elementary School (School City of Mishawaka)	86.3		D	C
Hay Elementary School (South Bend Community School Corp)	75		F	D
Warren Elementary School (South Bend Community School Corp)	87		F	D
Clay High School (South Bend Community School Corp)		79.5	C	C
Clay International Academy (South Bend Community School Corp)	91.4		F	D
Darden Elementary School (South Bend Community School Corp)	73.9		F	D
Swanson Traditional School (South Bend Community School Corp)	109.2		B	B
Adams High School (South Bend Community School Corp)		105.2	B	A
Jackson Middle School (South Bend Community School Corp)	67		F	D
LaSalle Academy (South Bend Community School Corp)	91.4		C	B
Riley High School (South Bend Community School Corp)		91.8	B	B
Washington High School (South Bend Community School Corp)		88.5	C	C
Coquillard Elementary School (South Bend Community School Corp)	93.1		F	F
Rise Up Academy at Eggleston (South Bend Community School Corp)			F	C
Edison Middle School (South Bend Community School Corp)	86.7		F	F
Harrison Elementary School (South Bend Community School Corp)	62.3		F	D
Hamilton Traditional School (South Bend Community School Corp)	90.4		D	D
Jefferson Traditional School (South Bend Community School Corp)	112.5		C	C
Kennedy Academy (South Bend Community School Corp)	98.8		C	B
Dickinson Fine Arts Academy (South Bend Community School Corp)	82.2		F	D
Lincoln Elementary School (South Bend Community School Corp)	82.6		F	D
McKinley Elementary School (South Bend Community School Corp)	79		F	D
Madison S.T.E.A.M. Academy (South Bend Community School Corp)	59		F	C
Marquette Montessori Academy (South Bend Community School Corp)	82.5		F	F
Monroe Elementary School (South Bend Community School Corp)	86.7		F	D
Wilson Elementary School (South Bend Community School Corp)	78.9		F	F
Muessel Elementary School (South Bend Community School Corp)	78.6		F	F
Navarre Middle School (South Bend Community School Corp)	75.5		F	F
Nuner Fine Arts Academy (South Bend Community School Corp)	67.2		F	C
Tarkington Elementary School (South Bend Community School Corp)	104.3		D	A
LaVille Jr-Sr High School (Union-North United School Corp)			UNDER APPEAL	Appeal Pending
LaVille Elementary School (Union-North United School Corp)	108.1		B	B
Austin High School (Scott County School District 1)		100.6	B	B
Austin Elementary School (Scott County School District 1)	86.4		D	C
Austin Middle School (Scott County School District 1)	83		F	C
Johnson Elementary School (Scott County School District 2)	99		C	A
Lexington Elementary School (Scott County School District 2)	61.4		F	B
Scottsburg Senior High School (Scott County School District 2)		96.7	B	B
Scottsburg Middle School (Scott County School District 2)	80.8		D	C
Scottsburg Elem School (Scott County School District 2)	91.5		D	B
Vienna-Finley Elementary School (Scott County School District 2)	86.2		C	B
Morristown Jr-Sr High School (Shelby Eastern Schools)	100.3	94.4	B	B
Morristown Elementary School (Shelby Eastern Schools)	91.9		C	B
Waldron Jr-Sr High School (Shelby Eastern Schools)	92.9	103	C	C
Waldron Elementary School (Shelby Eastern Schools)	91.4		C	C
Triton Central High School (Northwestern Con School Corp)		101.4	A	A
Triton Central Elementary School (Northwestern Con School Corp)	108.8		B	B
Triton Central Middle School (Northwestern Con School Corp)	96.1		C	B
Southwestern High School (Southwestern Con Sch Shelby Co)	85.1	102.7	B	B
Southwestern Elementary School (Southwestern Con Sch Shelby Co)	79.6		C	C
Shelbyville Sr High School (Shelbyville Central Schools)		88.2	B	B
Shelbyville Middle School (Shelbyville Central Schools)	83		D	B
Coulston Elementary School (Shelbyville Central Schools)	91.7		D	B
Thomas A Hendricks Elementary Sch (Shelbyville Central Schools)	90.9		C	C
William F Loper Elementary School (Shelbyville Central Schools)	104.3		B	A
Chrisney Elementary School (North Spencer County Sch Corp)	84.8		B	A
David Turnham Education Center (North Spencer County Sch Corp)	102.6		B	A
Nancy Hanks Elementary School (North Spencer County Sch Corp)	103.8		B	A
Heritage Hills High School (North Spencer County Sch Corp)		107.4	A	A
Heritage Hills Middle School (North Spencer County Sch Corp)	98.8		B	A
Lincoln Trail Elementary School (North Spencer County Sch Corp)	100.6		A	A
Luce Elementary School (South Spencer County Sch Corp)	98.9		C	B
South Spencer High School (South Spencer County Sch Corp)		95.5	B	B
South Spencer Middle School (South Spencer County Sch Corp)	109.4		B	A
Rockport-Ohio Elementary School (South Spencer County Sch Corp)	82.6		D	B
Oregon-Davis Elementary School (Oregon-Davis School Corp)	80.3		D	A
Oregon-Davis Jr-Sr High School (Oregon-Davis School Corp)	63.4	92.8	D	C
N Judson-San Pierre Jr Sr High Sch (North Judson-San Pierre Sch Corp)	75.3	110.5	C	B
North Judson-San Pierre Elem Sch (North Judson-San Pierre Sch Corp)	94.1		D	C
Knox Community High School (Knox Community School Corp)		110.7	A	A
Knox Community Middle School (Knox Community School Corp)	83.5		D	D
Knox Community Elementary School (Knox Community School Corp)	89.3		D	B
Fremont High School (Fremont Community Schools)		135.3	A	A
Fremont Elementary School (Fremont Community Schools)	97		C	B
Fremont Middle School (Fremont Community Schools)	106.3		B	A
Hamilton Community High School (Hamilton Community Schools)	69.4	124.7	C	B
Hamilton Community Elementary Sch (Hamilton Community Schools)	72.7		F	C
Angola High School (M S D Steuben County)		84.7	B	B
Angola Middle School (M S D Steuben County)	104.3		C	C
Carlin Park Elementary School (M S D Steuben County)	95		D	C
Ryan Park Elementary School (M S D Steuben County)	108.2		C	C
Hendry Park Elementary School (M S D Steuben County)	81.4		D	C
Pleasant Lake Elementary School (M S D Steuben County)	71.2		F	C
Northeast Middle School (Northeast School Corp)	68.5		F	D
North Central High School (Northeast School Corp)		99.2	B	A
Northeast North Elementary School (Northeast School Corp)	86.8		C	B
Northeast East Elementary School (Northeast School Corp)	100.4		C	A
Carlisle Elementary School (Southwest School Corp)	94.2		C	A
Carlisle Middle School (Southwest School Corp)	59.7		F	A
Sullivan High School (Southwest School Corp)		97.5	A	A
Sullivan Middle School (Southwest School Corp)	89.3		C	C
Sullivan Elementary School (Southwest School Corp)	99.1		C	B
Jefferson-Craig Elementary School (Switzerland County School Corp)	98.2		C	C
Switzerland Co Middle School (Switzerland County School Corp)	84.4		F	D
Switzerland Co Senior High School (Switzerland County School Corp)		81.1	C	B
Switzerland Co Elementary School (Switzerland County School Corp)	96.7		D	D
Oakland High School (Lafayette School Corporation)			F	F
Jefferson High School (Lafayette School Corporation)		97.1	B	B
Lafayette Sunnyside Intermediate (Lafayette School Corporation)	66.6		F	D
Lafayette Tecumseh Jr High School (Lafayette School Corporation)	87.8		D	D
Edgelea Elementary School (Lafayette School Corporation)	101.2		C	A
Glen Acres Elementary School (Lafayette School Corporation)	115.4		B	A
Miami Elementary School (Lafayette School Corporation)	63.9		F	C
Thomas Miller Elementary School (Lafayette School Corporation)	93.7		D	C
Murdock Elementary School (Lafayette School Corporation)	106.2		B	A
Oakland Elementary School (Lafayette School Corporation)	129.1		A	A
Vinton Elementary School (Lafayette School Corporation)	89.3		C	C
Amelia Earhart Elementary School (Lafayette School Corporation)	97.5		C	C
McCutcheon High School (Tippecanoe School Corp)		82.5	B	B
Mayflower Mill Elementary School (Tippecanoe School Corp)	111.8		B	B
Wyandotte Elementary (Tippecanoe School Corp)	120.1		A	A
Hershey Elementary School (Tippecanoe School Corp)	115.1		A	A
Mintonye Elementary School (Tippecanoe School Corp)	86.7		C	C
Dayton Elementary School (Tippecanoe School Corp)	111.9		B	B
Burnett Creek Elementary School (Tippecanoe School Corp)	109.4		A	A
Wea Ridge Elementary School (Tippecanoe School Corp)	90.3		D	C
Battle Ground Elementary School (Tippecanoe School Corp)	105.6		B	B
Battle Ground Middle School (Tippecanoe School Corp)	87.6		D	D
Wainwright Middle School (Tippecanoe School Corp)	94.2		D	D
William Henry Harrison High School (Tippecanoe School Corp)		105.6	A	A
East Tipp Middle School (Tippecanoe School Corp)	90.9		C	B
James Cole Elementary School (Tippecanoe School Corp)	126.2		A	A
Klondike Middle School (Tippecanoe School Corp)	101.5		C	B
Klondike Elementary School (Tippecanoe School Corp)	102.3		B	B
Southwestern Middle School (Tippecanoe School Corp)	91.8		D	C
Wea Ridge Middle School (Tippecanoe School Corp)	99.2		C	B
Woodland Elementary School (Tippecanoe School Corp)	88.7		D	C
West Lafayette Jr/Sr High School (West Lafayette Com School Corp)	92.7	122.1	A	A
West Lafayette Intermediate School (West Lafayette Com School Corp)	93		B	A
Cumberland Elementary School (West Lafayette Com School Corp)	93		B	A
Tri Central Elementary (Tri-Central Community Schools)	91.5		D	C
Tri Central Middle-High School (Tri-Central Community Schools)	84.5	105.9	C	C
Tipton Elementary School (Tipton Community School Corp)	90.6		C	B
Tipton Middle School (Tipton Community School Corp)	88.7		D	C
Tipton High School (Tipton Community School Corp)		74.1	B	B
Union County High School (Union Co/Clg Corner Joint Sch Dist)		82.3	B	B
Union County Middle School (Union Co/Clg Corner Joint Sch Dist)	87.6		D	B
Liberty Elementary School (Union Co/Clg Corner Joint Sch Dist)	79.1		D	A
College Corner Union Elem School (Union Co/Clg Corner Joint Sch Dist)	106.2		C	A
Cynthia Heights Elementary School (Evansville Vanderburgh School Corp)	104.3		B	A
Scott Elementary School (Evansville Vanderburgh School Corp)	111.6		A	A
North Junior High School (Evansville Vanderburgh School Corp)	90.4		C	B
Oak Hill Elementary (Evansville Vanderburgh School Corp)	92.5		B	A
Benjamin Bosse High School (Evansville Vanderburgh School Corp)		99.6	B	B
Central High School (Evansville Vanderburgh School Corp)		109.8	A	A
McCutchanville Elementary School (Evansville Vanderburgh School Corp)	121.1		A	A
Francis Joseph Reitz High School (Evansville Vanderburgh School Corp)		87.1	B	B
Lincoln School (Evansville Vanderburgh School Corp)	83.6		F	D
North High School (Evansville Vanderburgh School Corp)		113.3	A	A
Caze Elementary School (Evansville Vanderburgh School Corp)	96.8		F	F
Cedar Hall Community School (Evansville Vanderburgh School Corp)	100.1		D	D
Academy for Innovative Studies (Evansville Vanderburgh School Corp)	49.1	59	F	F
Harwood Career Prep High School (Evansville Vanderburgh School Corp)			No Grade	No Grade
Delaware Elementary School (Evansville Vanderburgh School Corp)	91.1		F	D
Dexter Elementary School (Evansville Vanderburgh School Corp)	96.7		D	D
Fairlawn Elementary School (Evansville Vanderburgh School Corp)	115.9		C	C
Glenwood Leadership Academy (Evansville Vanderburgh School Corp)	92.2		F	F
Harper Elementary School (Evansville Vanderburgh School Corp)	75.3		F	D
William Henry Harrison High School (Evansville Vanderburgh School Corp)		103.9	B	B
Hebron Elementary School (Evansville Vanderburgh School Corp)	106.9		C	B
Helfrich Park STEM Academy (Evansville Vanderburgh School Corp)	98.6		C	B
Stockwell Elementary School (Evansville Vanderburgh School Corp)	119.5		B	B
Thompkins Middle School (Evansville Vanderburgh School Corp)	97.8		C	B
Highland Elementary School (Evansville Vanderburgh School Corp)	94.5		C	C
New Tech Institute (Evansville Vanderburgh School Corp)		81.6	B	B
Lodge Community School (Evansville Vanderburgh School Corp)	90.3		F	F
McGary Middle School (Evansville Vanderburgh School Corp)	91.5		F	D
Perry Heights Middle School (Evansville Vanderburgh School Corp)	106		B	B
Plaza Park International Prep Acad (Evansville Vanderburgh School Corp)	91		D	B
Evans School (Evansville Vanderburgh School Corp)	76.9		F	F
Stringtown Elementary School (Evansville Vanderburgh School Corp)	100.5		C	C
Tekoppel Elementary School (Evansville Vanderburgh School Corp)	103.2		C	B
Vogel Elementary School (Evansville Vanderburgh School Corp)	97		C	C
Washington Middle School (Evansville Vanderburgh School Corp)	84.2		F	D
Daniel Wertz Elementary School (Evansville Vanderburgh School Corp)	106.3		C	B
West Terrace Elementary School (Evansville Vanderburgh School Corp)	92.4		C	A
North Vermillion High School (North Vermillion Com Sch Corp)	71	91.5	C	C
North Vermillion Elementary School (North Vermillion Com Sch Corp)	89.6		D	B
Central Elementary School (South Vermillion Com Sch Corp)	84.1		D	B
Ernie Pyle Elementary School (South Vermillion Com Sch Corp)	89.7		D	C
South Vermillion High School (South Vermillion Com Sch Corp)		82.4	B	B
South Vermillion Middle School (South Vermillion Com Sch Corp)	92		D	C
Van Duyn Elementary School (South Vermillion Com Sch Corp)	47.7		F	D
Terre Haute North Vigo High School (Vigo County School Corp)		83.3	B	B
Honey Creek Middle School (Vigo County School Corp)	89.9		C	B
West Vigo High School (Vigo County School Corp)		112	A	A
Terre Haute South Vigo High School (Vigo County School Corp)		82.6	B	A
West Vigo Middle School (Vigo County School Corp)	75.2		F	D
Otter Creek Middle School (Vigo County School Corp)	67.7		F	C
Sarah Scott Middle School (Vigo County School Corp)	72.2		F	C
Woodrow Wilson Middle School (Vigo County School Corp)	78.8		D	B
Sugar Creek Consolidated Elem Sch (Vigo County School Corp)	113.5		B	B
Davis Park Elementary School (Vigo County School Corp)	90.7		D	C
Deming Elementary School (Vigo County School Corp)	85		F	D
Adelaide De Vaney Elementary Sch (Vigo County School Corp)	96.3		C	A
Dixie Bee Elementary School (Vigo County School Corp)	90.3		C	A
Farrington Grove Elementary School (Vigo County School Corp)	95.7		D	A
Fayette Elementary School (Vigo County School Corp)	72.7		D	A
Rio Grande Elementary School (Vigo County School Corp)	89.3		C	A
Benjamin Franklin Elem School (Vigo County School Corp)	72.5		F	B
Blanche E Fuqua Elementary School (Vigo County School Corp)	80.4		F	B
Hoosier Prairie Elementary School (Vigo County School Corp)	87.1		C	B
Lost Creek Elementary School (Vigo County School Corp)	80.5		C	B
Meadows Elementary School (Vigo County School Corp)	109.5		C	C
Ouabache Elementary School (Vigo County School Corp)	84.9		D	B
Riley Elementary School (Vigo County School Corp)	117		A	A
Sugar Grove Elementary School (Vigo County School Corp)	84.2		D	B
Terre Town Elementary School (Vigo County School Corp)	91.9		D	B
West Vigo Elementary School (Vigo County School Corp)	73.7		F	B
Booker T Washington Alt Sch (Vigo County School Corp)			C	No Grade
McLean Education Center (Alt) (Vigo County School Corp)			F	No Grade
Manchester Jr-Sr High School (Manchester Community Schools)	92.2	105.4	B	B
Manchester Elementary School (Manchester Community Schools)	101.8		C	B
Manchester Intermediate School (Manchester Community Schools)	101.8		C	B
Northfield Jr-Sr High School (M S D Wabash County Schools)	79.9	77.3	C	B
Southwood Jr-Sr High School (M S D Wabash County Schools)	114.2	114	B	B
Southwood Elementary School (M S D Wabash County Schools)	88.8		D	C
Sharp Creek Elementary School (M S D Wabash County Schools)	102.1		C	A
White's Jr-Sr High School (M S D Wabash County Schools)			No Grade	No Grade
Metro North Elementary School (M S D Wabash County Schools)	102.1		C	A
Wabash High School (Wabash City Schools)		93.7	B	B
Wabash Middle School (Wabash City Schools)	82.5		D	C
O J Neighbours Elementary School (Wabash City Schools)	83.9		D	C
Williamsport Elementary School (M S D Warren County)	89.4		D	C
Pine Village Elementary School (M S D Warren County)	121.1		B	B
Seeger Memorial Jr-Sr High School (M S D Warren County)	80.1	113.7	B	A
Warren Central Elementary School (M S D Warren County)	98.3		C	B
Castle South Middle School (Warrick County School Corp)	106.9		B	A
Yankeetown Elementary School (Warrick County School Corp)	73.9		D	A
John H Castle Elementary School (Warrick County School Corp)	110.9		A	A
Elberfeld Elementary School (Warrick County School Corp)	125.8		A	A
Tecumseh Middle School (Warrick County School Corp)	106.3		A	A
Tecumseh High School (Warrick County School Corp)		114.5	A	A
Lynnville Elementary School (Warrick County School Corp)	101.8		B	B
Castle North Middle School (Warrick County School Corp)	97.6		B	A
Loge Elementary School (Warrick County School Corp)	92		C	A
Tennyson Elementary School (Warrick County School Corp)	101.7		B	B
Boonville High School (Warrick County School Corp)		79.2	B	B
Boonville Middle School (Warrick County School Corp)	89.3		C	A
Oakdale Elementary School (Warrick County School Corp)	109.6		B	A
Castle High School (Warrick County School Corp)		89.2	A	A
Chandler Elementary School (Warrick County School Corp)	99.2		B	B
Newburgh Elementary School (Warrick County School Corp)	111.1		B	A
Sharon Elementary School (Warrick County School Corp)	95.4		B	A
Salem High School (Salem Community Schools)		107	B	B
Salem Middle School (Salem Community Schools)	82.8		F	D
Bradie Shrum Elementary (Salem Community Schools)	90.3		D	C
East Washington Elementary School (East Washington School Corp)	101.9		B	B
Eastern High School (East Washington School Corp)		59.8	B	B
East Washington Middle School (East Washington School Corp)	77.1		F	C
West Washington Jr-Sr High School (West Washington School Corp)	63.6	110.7	C	B
West Washington Elementary School (West Washington School Corp)	109.1		A	A
Hagerstown Jr-Sr High School (Nettle Creek School Corporation)	86.2	87.6	C	B
Hagerstown Elementary School (Nettle Creek School Corporation)	104.5		C	A
Lincoln Sr High School (Western Wayne Schools)		98.6	C	A
Lincoln Middle School (Western Wayne Schools)	99.3		D	D
Western Wayne Elementary School (Western Wayne Schools)	89.3		D	C
Centerville Sr High School (Centerville-Abington Com Schs)		94.8	A	A
Centerville-Abington Jr High Sch (Centerville-Abington Com Schs)	86.2		D	B
Centerville-Abington Elem School (Centerville-Abington Com Schs)	105.2		C	B
Rose Hamilton Elementary School (Centerville-Abington Com Schs)	105.2		C	B
Northeastern High School (Northeastern Wayne Schools)		80	B	B
Northeastern Elementary School (Northeastern Wayne Schools)	96.2		D	A
Northeastern Middle School (Northeastern Wayne Schools)	105.4		C	A
Richmond High School (Richmond Community Schools)		74.3	B	B
Test Intermediate School (Richmond Community Schools)	63.4		F	D
Dennis Intermediate School (Richmond Community Schools)	65.7		F	D
Charles Elementary School (Richmond Community Schools)	94.2		C	B
Crestdale Elementary School (Richmond Community Schools)	62.9		F	B
Fairview Elementary School (Richmond Community Schools)	75.4		F	F
Starr Elementary School (Richmond Community Schools)	117.1		C	B
Vaile Elementary School (Richmond Community Schools)	59.8		F	D
Westview Elementary School (Richmond Community Schools)	86.6		D	C
Southern Wells Elementary School (Southern Wells Com Schools)	98.6		C	C
Southern Wells Jr-Sr High School (Southern Wells Com Schools)	114.3	117.5	B	B
Ossian Elementary (Northern Wells Com Schools)	106.4		C	B
Lancaster Central School (Northern Wells Com Schools)	99.2		C	A
Norwell High School (Northern Wells Com Schools)		98.8	A	A
Norwell Middle School (Northern Wells Com Schools)	84.7		D	B
Bluffton High School (M S D Bluffton-Harrison)		121.7	A	A
Bluffton-Harrison Middle School (M S D Bluffton-Harrison)	96.4		C	C
Bluffton-Harrison Elementary Sch (M S D Bluffton-Harrison)	95.6		C	C
North White Elementary School (North White School Corp)	96.5		C	B
North White Middle School (North White School Corp)	84.2		F	C
North White High School (North White School Corp)		96	B	B
Frontier Elementary (Frontier School Corporation)	111.5		B	A
Frontier Jr-Sr High School (Frontier School Corporation)	90.4	99.6	B	B
Tri-County Primary School (Tri-County School Corporation)	115.5		B	A
Tri-County Jr/Sr High School (Tri-County School Corporation)	91.8	71.5	C	B
Tri-County Intermediate School (Tri-County School Corporation)	115.5		B	A
Eastlawn Elementary School (Twin Lakes School Corp)	94.6		C	B
Twin Lakes Senior High School (Twin Lakes School Corp)		108.3	B	B
Roosevelt Middle School (Twin Lakes School Corp)	110.5		B	B
Oaklawn Elementary School (Twin Lakes School Corp)	109		B	B
Meadowlawn Elementary School (Twin Lakes School Corp)	110.3		C	C
Churubusco Jr-Sr High School (Smith-Green Community Schools)	117	107.2	B	A
Churubusco Elementary School (Smith-Green Community Schools)	95.9		C	C
Little Turtle Elementary School (Whitley Co Cons Schools)	90.4		D	B
Coesse School (Whitley Co Cons Schools)	91		D	C
Indian Springs Middle School (Whitley Co Cons Schools)	88.1		D	B
Northern Heights Elementary School (Whitley Co Cons Schools)	94.8		C	C
Columbia City High School (Whitley Co Cons Schools)		68.1	B	B
Mary Raber Elementary School (Whitley Co Cons Schools)	64		F	C
Thomas Carr Howe Comm High School (CSUSA Howe)	99.1	114.5	C	C
Emmerich Manual High School (CSUSA Manual)		94.2	C	C
Theodore Roosevelt Car & Tech Acad (Edison Learning Roosevelt)	70.7	109.9	A	A
Emma Donnan Middle School (CSUSA Donnan)	99.2		D	C
Ignite Achievement Academy (Ignite Achievement Academy )	51.5		F	C
Purdue Polytechnic High School Ind (Purdue Polytechnic High School Ind)		74.3	C	No Grade
Otwell Miller Academy (Otwell Miller Academy)			No Grade	No Grade
Indiana Connections Career Academy (Indiana Connections Career Academy)		64.3	D	No Grade
Avondale Meadows Middle School (Avondale Meadows Middle School)	99		A	A
J & R Phalen Leadership Academy (J & R Phalen Leadership Academy )	94		A	A
Paramount Community Heights (Paramount Community Heights )			No Grade	No Grade
Allegiant Preparatory Academy (Allegiant Preparatory Academy)			No Grade	No Grade
Gary Middle College West (Gary Middle College West)			No Grade	No Grade
Vanguard Collegiate of Indy (Vanguard Collegiate of Indy)			No Grade	No Grade
pilotED Schools Bethel Park (pilotED Schools)			No Grade	No Grade
Matchbook Learning (Matchbook Learning )	69.9		D	No Grade
Urban ACT Academy (Urban ACT Academy)	56.2		F	No Grade
Kindezi Academy (Kindezi Academy)			No Grade	No Grade
Insight School of Indiana (Insight School of Indiana)	68.2	74.6	C	C
Riverside High School (Riverside High School)		122.5	A	A
Circle City Prep Charter School (Circle City Prep Charter School)			No Grade	No Grade
Indiana Virtual Pathways Academy (Indiana Virtual Pathways Academy)		68.8	D	No Grade
Timothy L. Johnson Academy Middle (Timothy L. Johnson Academy Middle )	105.8		A	A
St Bartholomew School (Archdiocese of Indianapolis)	108.2		A	A
St John Paul II Catholic School (Archdiocese of Indianapolis)	98		B	A
Saint Anthony of Padua (Archdiocese of Indianapolis)	119.8		B	B
Sacred Heart School (Archdiocese of Indianapolis)	73.8		D	B
Our Lady Of Providence High School (Archdiocese of Indianapolis)		103.5	A	A
Saint Nicholas School (Archdiocese of Indianapolis)	120.4		A	A
Saint Mary School (Archdiocese of Indianapolis)	91		D	C
Saint Lawrence School (Archdiocese of Indianapolis)	106.1		B	B
Saint Mary's School (Archdiocese of Indianapolis)	104.9		B	A
Saint Gabriel Catholic School (Archdiocese of Indianapolis)	111.5		B	A
Holy Family School (Archdiocese of Indianapolis)	111.7		A	A
Our Lady Of Perpetual School (Archdiocese of Indianapolis)	77.2		C	A
St Mary of-the-Knobs Catholic Sch (Archdiocese of Indianapolis)	113.9		A	A
Saint Michael School (Archdiocese of Indianapolis)	100.2		B	A
Saint Michael School (Archdiocese of Indianapolis)	107.4		B	A
Saint Joseph School (Archdiocese of Indianapolis)	99.3		C	B
Saint Malachy School (Archdiocese of Indianapolis)	104.5		B	A
Saint Susanna School (Archdiocese of Indianapolis)	107.8		B	B
Saint Ambrose School (Archdiocese of Indianapolis)	116.3		B	B
Shawe Memorial High School (Archdiocese of Indianapolis)	105.1	128.7	B	A
Pope John XXIII Elementary School (Archdiocese of Indianapolis)	123.5		B	B
Saint Mary School (Archdiocese of Indianapolis)	102.6		B	B
St Rose of Lima School (Archdiocese of Indianapolis)	90.2		D	B
Our Lady of the Greenwood School (Archdiocese of Indianapolis)	104.3		B	A
SS Francis and Clare Catholic Sch (Archdiocese of Indianapolis)	103.7		B	A
Saint Vincent DePaul School (Archdiocese of Indianapolis)	97		B	A
Nativity Catholic School (Archdiocese of Indianapolis)	81.7		C	B
Saint Lawrence School (Archdiocese of Indianapolis)	95.8		D	C
Saint Barnabas School (Archdiocese of Indianapolis)	120.5		A	A
Saint Jude Elementary School (Archdiocese of Indianapolis)	110.7		A	A
Saint Mark School (Archdiocese of Indianapolis)	102.6		C	A
Saint Roch School (Archdiocese of Indianapolis)	88.7		C	B
Roncalli High School (Archdiocese of Indianapolis)		123.5	A	A
Brebeuf Jesuit Preparatory School (Archdiocese of Indianapolis)		125.6	A	A
Holy Spirit School (Archdiocese of Indianapolis)	111.4		C	B
Saint Luke School (Archdiocese of Indianapolis)	92.6		B	A
Saint Matthew School (Archdiocese of Indianapolis)	102.2		B	A
Saint Monica School (Archdiocese of Indianapolis)	103.3		C	B
Saint Pius X School (Archdiocese of Indianapolis)	113.5		A	A
Holy Name Catholic School (Archdiocese of Indianapolis)	86.7		D	C
Christ The King School (Archdiocese of Indianapolis)	105.2		A	A
Holy Angels Catholic School (Archdiocese of Indianapolis)	97.9		F	C
Holy Cross Central School (Archdiocese of Indianapolis)	118.3		C	C
Immaculate Heart of Mary School (Archdiocese of Indianapolis)	108.4		A	A
Our Lady Of Lourdes School (Archdiocese of Indianapolis)	109.2		B	B
St Anthony Catholic School (Archdiocese of Indianapolis)	108.8		D	A
Providence Cristo Rey High School (Archdiocese of Indianapolis)		82.1	B	B
Central Catholic School (Archdiocese of Indianapolis)	105.9		C	B
Saint Joan Of Arc School (Archdiocese of Indianapolis)	82.1		D	C
St Michael The Archangel School (Archdiocese of Indianapolis)	95.8		D	C
Saint Philip Neri School (Archdiocese of Indianapolis)	109.8		D	D
Saint Simon The Apostle School (Archdiocese of Indianapolis)	107.4		A	A
St Therese Little Flower School (Archdiocese of Indianapolis)	113.7		C	B
Saint Thomas Aquinas School (Archdiocese of Indianapolis)	92.9		B	A
Cathedral High School (Archdiocese of Indianapolis)		112.3	A	A
Bishop Chatard High School (Archdiocese of Indianapolis)		105.8	A	A
Scecina Memorial High School (Archdiocese of Indianapolis)		87.1	B	A
Cardinal Ritter High School (Archdiocese of Indianapolis)	93.2	146.3	A	A
Saint Christopher School (Archdiocese of Indianapolis)	96.2		C	A
Saint Charles Boromeo School (Archdiocese of Indianapolis)	110.3		A	A
Saint Louis School (Archdiocese of Indianapolis)	86.5		C	B
Oldenburg Academy (Archdiocese of Indianapolis)		84.3	B	B
Saint Mary Elementary School (Archdiocese of Indianapolis)	98.1		C	C
Saint Joseph School (Archdiocese of Indianapolis)	113.1		B	B
Saint Patrick School (Archdiocese of Indianapolis)	92.9		C	A
Seton Catholic Elementary (Archdiocese of Indianapolis)	116.5		A	A
Seton Catholic High School (Archdiocese of Indianapolis)	90.5	116.6	B	B
Aquinas School at St Andrew's (Diocese of Gary)	90.7		D	B
Andrean High School (Diocese of Gary)		109	A	A
Saint Michael School (Diocese of Gary)	100.4		B	A
Saint John Evangelist School (Diocese of Gary)	109.2		A	A
Saint Mary Catholic Comm School (Diocese of Gary)	86.4		C	A
St Stanislaus School (Diocese of Gary)	101.5		D	B
Saint Mary School (Diocese of Gary)	96		C	B
Saint Casimir School (Diocese of Gary)	102.5		D	C
Saint John Bosco School (Diocese of Gary)	101.6		D	B
Saint John The Baptist School (Diocese of Gary)	104.4		C	B
Bishop Noll Institute (Diocese of Gary)		94.5	B	A
Our Lady Of Grace School (Diocese of Gary)	83.7		D	B
Saint Thomas More School (Diocese of Gary)	117.5		A	A
Notre Dame Catholic School (Diocese of Gary)	112.3		A	A
Queen Of All Saints School (Diocese of Gary)	99.7		C	C
Saint Stanislaus Kostka School (Diocese of Gary)	58.1		F	B
Marquette Catholic High School (Diocese of Gary)		100.8	A	A
Saint Patrick School (Diocese of Gary)	108.2		A	A
Nativity of Our Savior School (Diocese of Gary)	129.4		A	A
Saint Paul Catholic School (Diocese of Gary)	93.5		B	A
Sacred Heart School (Diocese of Lafayette Catholic Sch)	118.1		B	A
Saint Lawrence School (Diocese of Lafayette Catholic Sch)	103.3		B	A
Saint Mary School (Diocese of Lafayette Catholic Sch)	103.7		B	A
Saint Paul Parish School (Diocese of Lafayette Catholic Sch)	86.3		C	C
Our Lady Of Mt Carmel School (Diocese of Lafayette Catholic Sch)	105.2		A	A
Saint Maria Goretti School (Diocese of Lafayette Catholic Sch)	84.3		B	A
Saint Louis de Montfort School (Diocese of Lafayette Catholic Sch)	102.5		A	A
Our Lady of Grace School (Diocese of Lafayette Catholic Sch)	110.2		A	A
Guerin Catholic High School (Diocese of Lafayette Catholic Sch)		114.6	A	A
Sts Joan of Arc & Patrick School (Diocese of Lafayette Catholic Sch)	91.5		C	A
Saint Augustine School (Diocese of Lafayette Catholic Sch)	118.1		A	A
Saint Mary School (Diocese of Lafayette Catholic Sch)	94		C	C
Holy Cross School (Diocese of Lafayette Catholic Sch)	108.6		A	A
Central Catholic Jr-Sr High School (Diocese of Lafayette Catholic Sch)	110.9	137	A	A
Saint Boniface School (Diocese of Lafayette Catholic Sch)	86.6		C	A
Saint Lawrence Elementary School (Diocese of Lafayette Catholic Sch)	105.2		B	A
Saint Mary Cathedral School (Diocese of Lafayette Catholic Sch)	86.6		B	A
Washington Catholic Mid/High Sch (Diocese of Evansville)	101.3		C	C
Washington Catholic Elementary Sch (Diocese of Evansville)	132.9		A	A
Holy Trinity Catholic School (Diocese of Evansville)	105.7		A	A
St Joseph School (Diocese of Evansville)	106.5		B	A
Holy Cross School (Diocese of Evansville)	76.6		C	B
Saint James School (Diocese of Evansville)	112.5		A	A
Saints Peter & Paul School (Diocese of Evansville)	103.6		B	A
Rivet Middle & High School (Diocese of Evansville)	89.2	109.4	B	A
Flaget Elementary School (Diocese of Evansville)	71.4		D	B
St Matthew School (Diocese of Evansville)	99.5		B	B
St Philip School (Diocese of Evansville)	97.4		A	A
Saint Wendel School (Diocese of Evansville)	88		B	A
St Bernard Catholic School (Diocese of Evansville)	108.7		B	B
Mater Dei High School (Diocese of Evansville)		121.2	A	A
Reitz Memorial High School (Diocese of Evansville)		104.2	A	A
Annuc Cthlc Sch @ Christ the King (Diocese of Evansville)	103.9		B	A
Corpus Christi School (Diocese of Evansville)	97.1		B	A
Good Shepherd School (Diocese of Evansville)	93.8		B	A
Holy Redeemer School (Diocese of Evansville)	127.8		A	A
Holy Rosary School (Diocese of Evansville)	110.4		A	A
Annunciation Cthlc at Holy Spirit (Diocese of Evansville)	84.5		D	C
Westside Catholic School (Diocese of Evansville)	101.4		C	A
St Benedict Cathedral School (Diocese of Evansville)	97.6		B	A
Saint Joseph School (Diocese of Evansville)	120.7		A	A
Resurrection School (Diocese of Evansville)	91.7		B	A
Saint John The Baptist School (Diocese of Evansville)	120		A	A
Saint Joseph School (Diocese of Fort Wayne - South Bend)	110.8		B	B
Saint Elizabeth Seton Catholic Sch (Diocese of Fort Wayne - South Bend)	109.6		B	A
Our Lady School (Diocese of Fort Wayne - South Bend)	108.8		A	A
Bishop Dwenger High School (Diocese of Fort Wayne - South Bend)		123.4	A	A
Bishop Luers High School (Diocese of Fort Wayne - South Bend)		123.6	A	A
Most Precious Blood School (Diocese of Fort Wayne - South Bend)	107.7		C	B
Queen Of Angels School (Diocese of Fort Wayne - South Bend)	81.6		D	B
Saint Charles Borromeo School (Diocese of Fort Wayne - South Bend)	98.4		B	B
Saint John The Baptist School (Diocese of Fort Wayne - South Bend)	101.8		B	A
Saint Joseph Catholic School (Diocese of Fort Wayne - South Bend)	115.9		C	A
Saint Jude Elementary School (Diocese of Fort Wayne - South Bend)	86.3		C	B
Saint Therese School (Diocese of Fort Wayne - South Bend)	87.4		D	C
Saint Vincent DePaul School (Diocese of Fort Wayne - South Bend)	99.5		B	A
Saint Aloysius Catholic School (Diocese of Fort Wayne - South Bend)	97.3		C	B
Saint Rose of Lima School (Diocese of Fort Wayne - South Bend)	90		C	C
St Joseph Hessen Cassel Cath Sch (Diocese of Fort Wayne - South Bend)	104.9		B	A
Saint John The Baptist Catholic (Diocese of Fort Wayne - South Bend)	110.2		B	A
Saint Louis Besancon Catholic Sch (Diocese of Fort Wayne - South Bend)	107.5		B	B
Saint Joseph School (Diocese of Fort Wayne - South Bend)	122.7		A	A
St Thomas The Apostle School (Diocese of Fort Wayne - South Bend)	92.6		B	B
St Vincent de Paul School (Diocese of Fort Wayne - South Bend)	103.6		D	D
St John Evangelist School (Diocese of Fort Wayne - South Bend)	86.8		D	C
Huntington Catholic School (Diocese of Fort Wayne - South Bend)	105.8		C	C
Sacred Heart School (Diocese of Fort Wayne - South Bend)	94.1		C	B
Saint Michael School (Diocese of Fort Wayne - South Bend)	106.4		B	A
Saint Mary Elementary School (Diocese of Fort Wayne - South Bend)	108.9		B	A
St Pius X Catholic School (Diocese of Fort Wayne - South Bend)	109.4		A	A
Marian High School (Diocese of Fort Wayne - South Bend)		112.5	A	A
Mishawaka Catholic School (Diocese of Fort Wayne - South Bend)	111		B	B
Queen of Peace School (Diocese of Fort Wayne - South Bend)	94.6		B	B
Saint Joseph High School (Diocese of Fort Wayne - South Bend)		101.3	A	A
Christ The King School (Diocese of Fort Wayne - South Bend)	105.2		B	A
Corpus Christi School (Diocese of Fort Wayne - South Bend)	87.4		C	A
Holy Cross School (Diocese of Fort Wayne - South Bend)	121.2		B	B
Holy Family School (Diocese of Fort Wayne - South Bend)	114.3		B	B
Our Lady Of Hungary School (Diocese of Fort Wayne - South Bend)	96.8		C	B
Saint Adalbert School (Diocese of Fort Wayne - South Bend)	83.9		D	A
Saint Anthony De Padua School (Diocese of Fort Wayne - South Bend)	89.9		C	A
Saint John The Baptist School (Diocese of Fort Wayne - South Bend)	98.2		F	C
Saint Joseph School (Diocese of Fort Wayne - South Bend)	97.6		B	A
Saint Jude Catholic School (Diocese of Fort Wayne - South Bend)	97.6		B	A
Saint Matthew Cathedral School (Diocese of Fort Wayne - South Bend)	102.5		D	D
Saint Bernard Elementary School (Diocese of Fort Wayne - South Bend)	107.7		B	B
St Peter Immanuel Lutheran School (Lutheran Schools of Indiana)	108		B	B
Wyneken Memorial Lutheran School (Lutheran Schools of Indiana)	99.7		C	B
Concordia Lutheran High School (Lutheran Schools of Indiana)		111.4	A	A
Suburban Bethlehem Lutheran School (Lutheran Schools of Indiana)	87.5		D	C
Concordia Lutheran School (Lutheran Schools of Indiana)	86.6		D	C
Emmanuel St Michael Lutheran Sch (Lutheran Schools of Indiana)	98.3		B	A
Emmaus Lutheran School (Lutheran Schools of Indiana)	91.5		C	B
Holy Cross Lutheran School (Lutheran Schools of Indiana)	113.6		B	A
Lutheran South Unity School (Lutheran Schools of Indiana)	100.5		D	B
Saint Paul Lutheran School (Lutheran Schools of Indiana)	85.2		D	B
Ascension Lutheran School (Lutheran Schools of Indiana)	103.5		C	C
Saint Peter's Lutheran School (Lutheran Schools of Indiana)	107.3		B	A
St John-Emmanuel Lutheran School (Lutheran Schools of Indiana)	103		B	A
Central Lutheran School (Lutheran Schools of Indiana)	85.6		D	B
Woodburn Lutheran School (Lutheran Schools of Indiana)	110.7		A	A
White Creek Lutheran School (Lutheran Schools of Indiana)	86.9		B	A
Saint Peter Lutheran School (Lutheran Schools of Indiana)	116.2		A	A
Saint John Ev Lutheran School (Lutheran Schools of Indiana)	92.8		A	A
Trinity Lutheran School (Lutheran Schools of Indiana)	102		A	A
Zion Lutheran School (Lutheran Schools of Indiana)			No Grade	No Grade
Saint John Lutheran School (Lutheran Schools of Indiana)	87.6		D	D
Redeemer Lutheran School (Lutheran Schools of Indiana)	110.2		B	A
Immanuel Lutheran School (Lutheran Schools of Indiana)	84.8		C	A
Saint John Lutheran School (Lutheran Schools of Indiana)	120.5		B	A
Trinity Lutheran High School (Lutheran Schools of Indiana)		125.5	A	A
Lutheran Central School (Lutheran Schools of Indiana)	96.6		A	A
Trinity Lutheran School (Lutheran Schools of Indiana)	95.9		C	C
Ascension Lutheran Christian Schl (Lutheran Schools of Indiana)			No Grade	No Grade
Trinity Lutheran School (Lutheran Schools of Indiana)	96.2		C	C
St Paul's Lutheran School (Lutheran Schools of Indiana)	106.1		C	B
Saint John Lutheran School (Lutheran Schools of Indiana)	95.3		C	B
Holy Cross Lutheran School (Lutheran Schools of Indiana)	94		C	A
Lutheran High School (Lutheran Schools of Indiana)		111.8	A	A
Calvary Lutheran School (Lutheran Schools of Indiana)	93.1		C	A
Trinity Lutheran School (Lutheran Schools of Indiana)	89.7		C	C
Saint John Ev Lutheran School (Lutheran Schools of Indiana)	97.4		C	A
Our Shepherd Lutheran School (Lutheran Schools of Indiana)	85.7		C	C
Emmaus Lutheran School (Lutheran Schools of Indiana)			F	No Grade
St John Lutheran School (Lutheran Schools of Indiana)	87.5		C	B
Immanuel Lutheran School (Lutheran Schools of Indiana)	103.2		A	A
Resurrection Lutheran Academy (Lutheran Schools of Indiana)	127.5		A	A
Saint Peter Lutheran School (Lutheran Schools of Indiana)	109.3		C	B
Saint James Lutheran School (Lutheran Schools of Indiana)	96		C	B
Evansville Lutheran School (Lutheran Schools of Indiana)	123.1		B	B
The Oaks Academy - Brookside (The Oaks Academy)	80.9		C	B
The Oaks Academy - Fall Creek (The Oaks Academy)	79.7		C	B
The Oaks Academy - Middle School (The Oaks Academy)	100.8		B	A
Charter School of the Dunes (Charter School of the Dunes)	80.5		F	D
Signature School Inc (Signature School Inc)		109.5	A	A
Community Montessori (Community Montessori Inc)	95.6	117.8	C	B
Options Charter School - Carmel (Options Charter School - Carmel)			UNDER APPEAL	Appeal Pending
Irvington Community School (Irvington Community School)	100.1	81.7	C	C
Timothy L Johnson Academy (Timothy L Johnson Academy)	72.8		F	D
Enlace Academy (Enlace Academy)	88.3		F	A
Christel House Academy South (Christel House Academy South)	92.5	106.4	C	C
Christel House Academy West (Christel House Academy West)	73		F	D
KIPP Indy College Prep Middle (KIPP Indy College Prep Middle)	113.4		D	A
KIPP Indy Unite Elementary (KIPP Indy Unite Elementary)	100.7		F	No Grade
Tindley Genesis Academy (Tindley Genesis Academy)	124.2		B	A
Tindley Summit Academy (Tindley Summit Academy)	94.7		F	C
Charles A Tindley Accelerated Sch (Charles A Tindley Accelerated Sch)		92.6	B	A
Thea Bowman Leadership Academy (Thea Bowman Leadership Academy)	76.9	76.5	D	D
Rural Community Academy (Rural Community Schools Inc)	62.7		F	C
SE Neighborhood Sch of Excellence (SE Neighborhood Sch of Excellence)	87.5		F	D
Joshua Academy (Joshua Academy)	93.6		D	B
Indiana Agriculture and Technology (Indiana Agriculture and Technology)			No Grade	No Grade
Gary Lighthouse Charter School (Gary Lighthouse Charter School)	110.8	73.9	D	C
21st Century Charter Sch of Gary (21st Century Charter Sch of Gary)	84.9	96.6	D	C
East Chicago Urban Enterprise Acad (East Chicago Urban Enterprise Acad)	94.3		D	D
Indpls Lighthouse Charter School (Indpls Lighthouse Charter School)	92.4	125.6	D	B
East Chicago Lighthouse (East Chicago Lighthouse Charter)	111.1		D	D
Andrew J Brown Academy (Andrew J Brown Academy)	104.2		D	C
Burris Laboratory School (Burris Laboratory School)	104.7	124.5	A	A
Indiana Academy for Sci Math Hmn (IN Acad for Sci Math & Humanities)			A	A
Options Charter School Noblesville (Options Charter School Noblesville)			UNDER APPEAL	Appeal Pending
Avondale Meadows Academy (Avondale Meadows Academy)	98.3		D	D
Herron High School (Herron Charter)		118.8	A	A
Hope Academy (Hope Academy)			No Grade	No Grade
Geist Montessori Academy (Geist Montessori Academy)	97.4		C	B
Indianapolis Metropolitan High Sch (Indianapolis Metropolitan High Sch)		69.9	B	B
Paramount Brookside (Paramount School Of Excellence Inc)	106.9		B	A
Aspire Charter Academy (Aspire Charter Academy)	102.3		D	D
Renaissance Academy Charter School (Renaissance Academy Charter School)	107		B	B
Hammond Academy of Science & Tech (Hammond Academy of Science & Tech)	94.7	110.3	C	B
Canaan Community Academy (Canaan Community Academy)	82.4		F	D
Neighbors' New Vistas High School (Neighbors' New Vistas High School)			F	F
Inspire Academy - A Sch of Inquiry (Inspire Academy - A Sch of Inquiry)	61.7		F	D
Thurgood Marshall Leadership Acad (Thurgood Marshall Leadership Acad)	52.2		F	F
Smith Academy for Excellence (Smith Academy for Excellence)	98.1		F	D
Indianapolis Lighthouse East (Indianapolis Lighthouse East)	76	64.4	F	B
Indianapolis Academy of Excellence (Indianapolis Academy of Excellence)	85.1		F	F
IN Math & Science Academy (IN Math & Science Academy)	116.1		C	C
Anderson Preparatory Academy (Anderson Preparatory Academy)	69	83	D	B
Dr Robert H Faulkner Academy (Dr Robert H Faulkner Academy)	101.9		B	B
Hoosier Academy - Indianapolis (Hoosier Academy - Indianapolis)	113.6		D	C
The Bloomington Project School (The Bloomington Project School)	115.6		A	A
Discovery Charter School (Discovery Charter School)	84.5		C	B
Rock Creek Community Academy (Rock Creek Community Academy)	102.4	103	B	B
Career Academy High School (Career Academy High School)		132	A	A
Gary Middle College (Gary Middle College)			D	No Grade
Indiana Virtual School (Indiana Virtual School)	76.1	70.5	F	F
IN Math & Science Academy - North (IN Math & Science Academy - North)	114.2	120.5	C	C
Indiana Connections Academy (Indiana Connections Academy)	84	87.6	D	D
Marion Academy (Marion Academy)			F	No Grade
Damar Charter Academy (Damar Charter Academy)	67.9		No Grade	No Grade
Phalen Leadership Academy - IN Inc (Phalen Leadership Academy - IN Inc)	115		B	A
Vision Academy (Vision Academy)	78.9		F	D
Tindley Collegiate Academy (Tindley Collegiate Academy)	99.4		D	A
Tindley Renaissance Academy (Tindley Renaissance Academy)	98.8		C	C
Dugger Union Community School Corp (Dugger Union Community School Corp)	82	62.9	D	C
Mays Community Academy (Mays Community Academy)	88.2		D	A
Success Academy Primary School (Success Academy Primary School)	90.2		F	B
Career Academy Middle School (Career Academy Middle School)	112.2		C	A
ACE Preparatory Academy (ACE Preparatory Academy)			No Grade	No Grade
Global Preparatory Academy (Global Preparatory Academy)	74.5		C	No Grade
Steel City Academy (Steel City Academy)	91.4	128.3	A	A
Seven Oaks Classical School (Seven Oaks Classical School)	90.9		A	A
Dana Christian School (Independent Non-Public Schools)			No Grade	No Grade
Riverview Adventist Christian Acad (Independent Non-Public Schools)			No Grade	No Grade
Illiana Christian High School (Independent Non-Public Schools)		117.9	A	A
Apogee School For The Gifted (Independent Non-Public Schools)			No Grade	No Grade
Blackhawk Christian Mdl/High Sch (Independent Non-Public Schools)	79.2	120.6	A	A
Blackhawk Christian Elementary Sch (Independent Non-Public Schools)	106.6		A	A
Cornerstone College Prep Sch (Independent Non-Public Schools)	114.3		C	C
Central Christian School (Independent Non-Public Schools)	91.2		D	B
Aboite Christian School (Independent Non-Public Schools)	108.6		C	C
Crossroad Child & Family Services (Independent Non-Public Schools)			No Grade	No Grade
Horizon Christian Academy (Independent Non-Public Schools)	50.6	101.5	F	F
Gateway Woods School (Independent Non-Public Schools)			F	F
North Star Montessori School (Independent Non-Public Schools)			D	No Grade
Columbus Christian School Inc (Independent Non-Public Schools)	81.7		C	C
James E Davis School (Independent Non-Public Schools)			F	F
Good Shepherd Christian Academy (Independent Non-Public Schools)	105.6		A	A
Lakewood Park Christian School (Independent Non-Public Schools)	94.1	114.7	B	A
Heritage Hall Christian School (Independent Non-Public Schools)	72		F	B
Clinton Christian School (Independent Non-Public Schools)	112.1		B	B
Elkhart Christian Academy (Independent Non-Public Schools)	119.8	149.1	A	A
Bethany Christian School (Independent Non-Public Schools)	108.6	122.3	A	A
Christian Academy of Indiana (Independent Non-Public Schools)	111.6	110.7	B	B
Covington Christian School (Independent Non-Public Schools)	86.1		D	C
Kinwell Academy Inc (Independent Non-Public Schools)			No Grade	No Grade
The King's Academy (Independent Non-Public Schools)	76.1	147.8	B	B
Lakeview Christian School Inc (Independent Non-Public Schools)	103.1		D	D
Eman Schools (Independent Non-Public Schools)	106.2	128.5	A	A
Fishers Christian Academy (Independent Non-Public Schools)	101.7		A	A
Paddock View Residential Center (Independent Non-Public Schools)			No Grade	No Grade
Indiana Academy (Independent Non-Public Schools)		120.9	A	A
Transitions Academy (Independent Non-Public Schools)			F	No Grade
Legacy Christian School (Independent Non-Public Schools)	113.8		A	A
Bethesda Christian School (Independent Non-Public Schools)	100.1	96	B	B
Kingsway Christian School (Independent Non-Public Schools)	90.9		C	C
Legacy Learning Center (Independent Non-Public Schools)	96.6		A	A
Universal School of Plainfield (Independent Non-Public Schools)			F	No Grade
Sandy Creek Christian Academy (Independent Non-Public Schools)	109.2		C	A
Covenant Christian High School (Independent Non-Public Schools)		100.5	A	A
DeMotte Christian School (Independent Non-Public Schools)	95		C	A
Jay County Christian Academy (Independent Non-Public Schools)	81.3		F	B
Christian Academy of Madison (Independent Non-Public Schools)	79.1		D	C
Pierceton Woods Academy (Independent Non-Public Schools)			No Grade	No Grade
Southwest IN Regional Youth Vlg (Independent Non-Public Schools)			F	F
Lakeland Christian Academy (Independent Non-Public Schools)	75.7	142.9	B	B
Warsaw Christian School (Independent Non-Public Schools)	106.4		B	A
Howe School (Independent Non-Public Schools)			D	D
Faith Academy (Independent Non-Public Schools)	84.4		F	F
Avicenna Academy (Independent Non-Public Schools)	97.1		C	A
Crown Point Christian School (Independent Non-Public Schools)	102.1		B	B
Ambassador Christian Academy (Independent Non-Public Schools)	108.5		C	B
Calumet Christian School (Independent Non-Public Schools)	97.7		D	D
Indiana Horizon Academy (Independent Non-Public Schools)			No Grade	No Grade
Mizpah Seventh-Day Adventist Acad (Independent Non-Public Schools)			No Grade	No Grade
Morning Star Academy (Independent Non-Public Schools)			F	No Grade
Highland Christian School (Independent Non-Public Schools)	113.8		B	A
Saint Paul Lutheran School (Independent Non-Public Schools)	76.3		F	C
Indiana Christian Academy (Independent Non-Public Schools)	74		D	D
Cross Street Christian School (Independent Non-Public Schools)	118.2		B	B
Delaware Christian Academy (Independent Non-Public Schools)			F	F
Liberty Christian School (Independent Non-Public Schools)	75.9	122.2	B	B
Liberty Christian Elementary (Independent Non-Public Schools)	95.4		D	C
Anderson Christian School (Independent Non-Public Schools)	91.1		D	C
Damar Academy (Independent Non-Public Schools)			No Grade	No Grade
Curtis Wilson Primary School (Independent Non-Public Schools)	104.6		B	A
Heritage Christian School (Independent Non-Public Schools)	103.6	123.3	A	A
Cornerstone Baptist Academy (Independent Non-Public Schools)	88.7		F	D
Horizon Christian School (Independent Non-Public Schools)	87.8	143.1	C	C
Suburban Christian School (Independent Non-Public Schools)	84.9		F	D
Southport Presbyterian Chrst Sch (Independent Non-Public Schools)	106.8		B	B
Traders Point Christian Academy (Independent Non-Public Schools)	92.8	107	C	B
Burge Terrace Christian School (Independent Non-Public Schools)	91.5		C	B
Indianapolis Junior Academy (Independent Non-Public Schools)	97.2		F	No Grade
Hasten Hebrew Acad of Indianapolis (Independent Non-Public Schools)	103		B	A
Colonial Christian School (Independent Non-Public Schools)	101.9	137	A	A
Islamic Academy of Indianapolis (Independent Non-Public Schools)			No Grade	No Grade
Crosspointe Christian Academy (Independent Non-Public Schools)	98.1	134.9	C	C
Covenant Christian High School (Independent Non-Public Schools)		113.9	A	A
Trinity Christian School (Independent Non-Public Schools)	95.7		F	D
Shepherd Community Academy (Independent Non-Public Schools)	110.4		C	A
Central Christian Academy (Independent Non-Public Schools)	57.8		F	D
Calvary Christian School (Independent Non-Public Schools)	106.4		B	A
The Independence Academy (Independent Non-Public Schools)	79.6		F	F
MTI School of Knowledge (Independent Non-Public Schools)	96.1		D	C
International Sch of IN HS (9-12) (Independent Non-Public Schools)			No Grade	No Grade
Indianapolis Southside Christian (Independent Non-Public Schools)			No Grade	No Grade
Capitol City SDA Church School (Independent Non-Public Schools)	112.1		B	B
TP Schools (Independent Non-Public Schools)	102.5		C	A
School for Community Learning (Independent Non-Public Schools)	91.3		D	C
Adventist Christian Elementary (Independent Non-Public Schools)			C	C
Covenant Christian School (Independent Non-Public Schools)			No Grade	No Grade
Lighthouse Christian Academy (Independent Non-Public Schools)	118.1	144.7	A	A
Clear Creek Christian School (Independent Non-Public Schools)	91.5		B	B
Tabernacle Christian School (Independent Non-Public Schools)	87.1	116.7	C	C
Mooresville Christian Academy (Independent Non-Public Schools)	108.9		B	B
Greenwood Christian Academy (Independent Non-Public Schools)	112.7	130.9	A	A
Shults-Lewis Child & Family Srvs (Independent Non-Public Schools)			F	D
Midwest Academy MCYF (Independent Non-Public Schools)			No Grade	No Grade
Emmanuel Baptist Academy (Independent Non-Public Schools)			No Grade	No Grade
Victory Christian Academy (Independent Non-Public Schools)	108	102.4	B	B
Portage Christian School (Independent Non-Public Schools)	108.1	127.2	C	C
North Liberty Christian School (Independent Non-Public Schools)	80.6		C	C
Covenant Christian School (Independent Non-Public Schools)	106.8		B	A
South Bend Hebrew Day School (Independent Non-Public Schools)	105.7		B	B
Bais Yaakov High School of Indiana (Independent Non-Public Schools)			No Grade	No Grade
Trinity School At Greenlawn (Independent Non-Public Schools)	104	108.1	C	C
New Vision Christian Academy (Independent Non-Public Schools)	109.8		C	C
Yeshiva of South Bend (Independent Non-Public Schools)			No Grade	No Grade
South Bend Jr Academy School (Independent Non-Public Schools)	70.7		F	D
Community Baptist Christian School (Independent Non-Public Schools)	110.4		C	B
Granger Christian School (Independent Non-Public Schools)	107.3	119.3	B	B
Michiana Christian Academy (Independent Non-Public Schools)	61.6		F	D
Grace Christian Academy Inc (Independent Non-Public Schools)	86.1		F	D
Lafayette Christian School (Independent Non-Public Schools)	102.3		B	B
T. C. Harris School (Independent Non-Public Schools)			F	F
Faith Christian School (Independent Non-Public Schools)	94.2	125.9	A	A
Evansville Christian School (Independent Non-Public Schools)	109.2		A	A
Evansville Christian Sch Newburgh (Independent Non-Public Schools)	111.7		A	A
Evansville Day School (Independent Non-Public Schools)	96.9	125.8	A	A
Small World Learning Center (Independent Non-Public Schools)			No Grade	No Grade
Holy Cross School (Independent Non-Public Schools)	66.7		F	F
Terre Haute Adventist School (Independent Non-Public Schools)			F	F
Community Christian School (Independent Non-Public Schools)	116		B	B
Kingdom Academy of Bluffton Inc (Independent Non-Public Schools)	109.5		C	C
T.R.O.Y. Center (Independent Non-Public Schools)			F	No Grade
Al Haqq Foundation Academy (Independent Non-Public Schools)			No Grade	No Grade
Israel School of Excellence (Independent Non-Public Schools)			No Grade	No Grade
Alyssum Montessori School (Independent Non-Public Schools)			No Grade	No Grade
Higher Institute of Arts & Tech (Heritage Institute of Arts & Tech)	111.1		A	A

Find your school’s projected 2019 A-F grade and growth scores

Statewide, the average growth points were 94.9 for grades 3-8 and 98.8 points for high school, according to the Department of Education.

Hold harmless: Indiana lawmakers propose using 2018 state grades to get teachers their bonuses on time

2019-10-23T17:08:31+00:00

Two top Indiana lawmakers are saying schools should be allowed to use old state-issued A-F grades to avoid delaying teacher bonuses. That recommendation comes as the state legislature considers a one-year “hold harmless” for low 2019 ILEARN scores.

In a letter to Superintendent Jennifer McCormick released Wednesday, Speaker of the House Brian Bosma and Senate President Pro Tempore Rodric Bray asked that the state’s top education authority instruct schools to use 2018 state grades for any teacher evaluations that would have been negatively impacted by new scores and grades.

At the same time, the lawmakers vowed to “expedite” hold harmless legislation in January, which would protect schools and teachers from negative consequences caused by low 2019 results on the state’s new ILEARN exam. Only 37.1% of Indiana students passed both the math and English portions.

Such hold harmless legislation would have the same effect as what Bosma and Bray are proposing. But moving now instead of waiting for the legislative session would allow the state to distribute teachers’ merit bonuses, funded through the Teacher Appreciation Grant program, by the usual December deadline.

In the letter, Bosma and Brian said this would be the “most timely, least disruptive” course for schools.

McCormick has previously called on lawmakers to hold schools and teachers harmless, as well as to reconsider the state grading system’s heavy reliance on state standardized test scores. She and her team are still reviewing the lawmakers’ letter, an Indiana Department of Education spokesperson said.

The State Board of Education, which includes McCormick, had already voted to delay releasing 2019 grades until lawmakers had time to consider the hold harmless. Some 90% of Indiana schools saw 60% of students or fewer passing both subject exams, meaning most of the state’s elementary and middle schools were on track to receive a D or F.

Calls for a one-year reprieve from consequences began in August, before 2019 ILEARN results were publicly released. Some lawmakers said they expected a transition period as students acclimate to the new test. But the General Assembly did not put any exceptions in place preemptively.

Schools are still expected to receive a federal performance measure, which the state previously adopted to comply with federal requirements while continuing to give state grades.

The delay and hold harmless exemption would not apply to the federal measure, which can factor into federal funding and which schools receive additional support. But those scores aren’t expected to be similarly affected because the measure uses more metrics, such as school attendance rates and language proficiency of English-learners.

Committee recommends change to Indiana A-F school grades, closing home-school loophole that skews graduation rates

2019-10-22T22:43:42+00:00

A state committee is recommending lawmakers change how Indiana grades high schools and is calling on the General Assembly to address a legal loophole that lets schools write off struggling students as home-schoolers.

If passed by lawmakers, high schools would be graded largely on whether students are enlisted, employed, or enrolled in post-secondary education when they graduate. The remaining 30% would measure whether the school is at or above the average passing rate for the state’s standardized test and how many students meet graduation requirements

The approach — approved by the committee of educators and lawmakers on Tuesday — was meant to better align with the state’s new graduation pathways, which offer Indiana high schoolers multiple options for completing diploma requirements.

But after some debate over whether to include school’s graduation rate at all, the committee is also advising the General Assembly to “review and consider” how it calculates graduation rates.

Last month a Chalkbeat investigation revealed home-school data that suggests Indiana’s lax regulation of home schooling and its method for calculating graduation rates are masking the extent of many schools’ dropout problems.

Under current statute, students who are marked as leaving to home-school are left out of a school’s graduation rate calculation, which can boost the measure and help the school earn a higher letter grade from the state. At the same time, Indiana does little to ensure those students are actually being educated at home.

Bob Behning, an Indianapolis Republican who chairs the House Education Committee, brought up the data during the committee meeting Tuesday, saying he would like to move away from relying on graduation rates to grade high schools.

“[Schools] can manipulate that number relatively easily,” Behning said. “They’re not doing it because it’s what’s best for the student; they are doing it because graduation rate is a big component in the accountability system.”

Emmerich Manual High School in Indianapolis, for example, reported 83 graduates in 2018, six dropouts and 60 students who left at some point during their high school years to be home-schooled — a red flag, experts said. The school reported a 78% grad rate in 2018, up from 69% in 2012.

Instead of relying on graduation rates, Behning suggested rewarding schools whose students complete more than one of the new menu of options under the state’s graduation pathways, whether that’s passing the SAT or ACT, earning a state-recognized credential, or passing the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery test.

The group ultimately decided to continue using the graduation rate, but recommended reducing its weight to 15% of a school’s grade. Graduation rate currently counts for 30% of school grades, which also factor in test scores and student improvement on standardized tests.

“I have a lot of confidence in the General Assembly being able to take care of these problems without getting rid of the graduation rate,” said committee member Teresa Lubbers, the state’s Commissioner for Higher Education. “I think we need to go on the record saying that it is a problem and that we need to look at numbers of schools … and then figure out what we need to do about it.”

The discussion over graduation rate was only one debate that took place during the more than three-hour meeting on Tuesday. Committee members also argued over whether it is appropriate to judge schools’ test scores as they relate to the state average, so schools who are at or above the average receive full points — a move that would provide a cushion for schools.

Lubbers argued that would allow average schools to get an A rating, when an average score on a grading scale is typically a C. Others members said it’s a more fair approach considering only one-third of Indiana 10th graders passed the state ISTEP exam in 2019. And Indiana could see that the passing rate drop even lower in 2023, when the state switches to instead administering the ACT or SAT.

Indiana State Teachers Association lobbyist John O’Neal told committee members Tuesday that the state’s largest teachers union still had some concerns with the final recommendations, such as no longer including a measurement of student improvement on exams.

The state is switching from using ISTEP to measure high schoolers to using a national standardized exam, either the SAT or ACT. Unlike the ISTEP, students won’t have previous years of ACT or SAT exam data to use to calculate a growth score. After some debate, committee members left the door open for the Indiana State Board of Education to account for growth data, should they figure out a way to calculate it.

The new grading system is meant to rely less on metrics tied to high-stakes testing.

Earlier drafts of the recommendations suggested looking at whether students were enlisted, employed or enrolled in post-secondary education a year post-graduation. But some teachers groups have previously questioned whether it’s fair to heavily weigh school accountability on student’s decisions after graduating. It’s an important distinction that the framework now recommends looking at what students are doing when they graduate.

The committee’s recommendations will go to lawmakers by Oct. 30. The next legislative session begins in January.

Indiana state board approves, then quickly reverses ‘nuclear’ change in A-F school grades

2019-10-02T19:48:40+00:00

Indiana’s State Board of Education on Wednesday passed a major change to how it grades schools — and then, at the very same meeting, voted to reverse its own decision.

In an effort to rein in how the state rewards student improvement on its standardized exam, the board initially approved a cap on so-called growth scores, which measure year-over-year performance.

Every year Indiana gives each school an A-F grade, meant to evenly weigh student growth and passing rates on state tests. But a board member, David Freitas, said the grading system skews unfairly toward growth. That’s because students could earn more than 100 points on growth but could get a maximum of 100 points for answering every test question correctly.

It’s not clear how drastically the cap the board passed, and which Freitas initially favored, would have affected school grades. But an Indiana Department of Education spokesperson, Adam Baker, said in an email Wednesday it would have negatively impacted school grades overall.

The board voted to reverse course when Board Chair B.J. Watts asked that his colleagues reconsider the decision before making a “huge change.”

“The vote that we took was a nuclear option,” said Watts, who at first was the only board member to vote against the cap. “It changes accountability on a level that I want to make sure that we all understood what we did.”

Indiana’s education department, which calculates schools’ growth scores, did not recommend the growth score cap. State Superintendent Jennifer McCormick, who heads the department, sits on the 11-member state board but was not at Wednesday’s meeting.

Ultimately, Freitas, along with all board members but one, voted to undo the decision.

Proponents of growth scores say they are a more fair measure of what a child has learned than whether or not they pass a high-stakes test. For example, a student who did not pass the ILEARN exam can still score well if they improve more than their peers did on average. The measure is particularly important at low-performing schools, where school leaders want to see significant year-over-year growth as they work to improve passing rates.

But on Wednesday Freitas argued that the ultimate goal of schools is to get every child learning at or above grade level. Such a metric places more value on whether or not they can pass the test.

This discussion comes at a time when schools’ A-F grades are already expected to be low statewide. That’s because nearly two-thirds of Indiana students didn’t pass both the math and English portions of ILEARN, Indiana’s new standardized test.

Although the education department is still working to calculate school grades, it could be months before they are made public. The state board already voted to hold their release until state lawmakers could consider a one-year reprieve, which would shield teachers and schools from any negative consequences of declining scores. Without such a reprieve, state grades could negatively impact teacher evaluations and trigger state intervention at chronically struggling schools.

What students do after graduating could determine their high school’s rating

2019-09-05T21:35:44+00:00

High schools in Indiana may soon be rated on what their students do after graduation — not just how many of them pass state tests and earn a diploma.

A committee of educators and lawmakers is considering changing Indiana’s high school grading system to account for the percentage of students that are enlisted, employed, or enrolled in post-secondary education within a year of graduating.

This approach is meant to align with the creation of graduation pathways, which offer Indiana high schoolers multiple options for completing the requirements to graduate. Students choose their path based on their interests, such as going to college or earning a technical certification.

“I think we have a real opportunity here to transform the way we do this for our students,” said Byron Ernest, a committee co-chair and a member of the State Board of Education. “If we were doing all those things for every student, we’ve improved the lives of a lot of students.”

Incorporating post-graduation metrics gives schools additional time for more students to hit the goals they set forth, Ernest said. However the idea that schools’ quality rankings would rely on decisions students make after leaving high school is concerning to some.

“K-12 can’t be the fix for everything,” said Pat Mapes, a committee co-chair and state education board member. “To think that I’m going to be responsible for that student beyond that step is something I can’t agree with… Once they walk out we just hope they make good decisions.”

Plus, he said it could prove difficult to track down some students after graduation.

The committee’s work falls in line with state leaders’ prioritization of workforce development and an ongoing push for schools to make students “college and career ready.” In 2019, just 37.1% of Indiana’s 3-8 students passed ILEARN, the state’s new standardized test that focuses more than the previous ISTEP test on college and career readiness. And around 12% of 2017 high school graduates needed remediation in college, according to the Indiana Commission for Higher Education’s 2019 report.

An early draft of the new grading system, discussed by the committee on Thursday, listed a few ways students would be considered successfully enrolled, enlisted or employed. The list is still being created, but includes measures such as passing the statewide test (which will soon be either the SAT or ACT), earning an industry-recognized certification, taking college credits in high school, or remaining in college for a second year.

The Indiana State Teachers Association is opposed to using post-graduation measures to evaluate schools, the union’s lobbyist, John O’Neal, told the committee Thursday. He pointed out that a student’s decisions after high school could be spurred by situations that schools shouldn’t be held accountable for, such as a death in the family.

If the committee moves forward with these changes, he asked that the post-graduation timeline be limited to six months and the grading system takes into account the community’s poverty levels, assessed home value, and unemployment rate. Those variables can affect a graduate’s job, salary and career advancement, O’Neal said.

Since high schools are currently graded heavily on test scores and graduation rates, it’s unclear how such a change would affect the ratings overall. In 2018, 87% of high schools received an A- or B-rating from the state.

State Superintendent Jennifer McCormick recently renewed her call for the state to revamp its accountability system for all levels, advocating for dropping A-F grades in favor of the federal measure schools already receive. The accountability committee does not include any officials from the Indiana Department of Education.

The committee is tasked with making its recommendations to lawmakers by Oct. 30.

As low ILEARN scores loom, McCormick wants to change how Indiana evaluates schools, teachers

2019-08-28T22:47:27+00:00

With fresh urgency, State Superintendent Jennifer McCormick renewed her call for reforming how Indiana grades schools. Her statements came Wednesday, after schools expressed concern about how ILEARN standardized test scores would affect their state grades.

Scores for the first year of ILEARN won’t be released to the public until next week, but schools received theirs earlier this month and the results are said to be disappointingly low.

Earlier this week McCormick, along with Gov. Eric Holcomb, and a string of lawmakers released statements calling on legislators to pass a “hold harmless” exemption, which would protect educators and schools from the negative effects of low scores. State test results can impact a school’s A-F grade and decisions about teacher pay.

On Wednesday McCormick went a step further, saying she will also ask legislators to pause state interventions for failing schools for one year and grant the State Board of Education “emergency rulemaking authority” to revamp the state’s accountability system.

“We are hopeful that our state General Assembly will take a hard look at our state accountability system and address some of those concerns so a year from now we are not having the same conversation,” McCormick said.

Schools in Indiana currently receive two performance measures each year. One is the state’s A-F grade, which for elementary and middle schools is based only on standardized test performance. It considers how many students pass the test and how much students’ learning grows each year.

The other is a federal measure considers other metrics such as school attendance rates and language proficiency of English-learners. It also includes certain student that the state plan excludes, such as those receiving credit recovery services.

The state adopted this second method to comply with new federal requirements while still keeping its grading system.

McCormick has previously called for the state to have only one measure for “transparency and clarity.” It’s one of her 2019 legislative priorities. But proponents of Indiana’s model previously said the state’s grading system is a better option because it reflects Indiana laws and policies, not federal ones.

How the state grades a school is important because that grade can affect how communities feel about their schools, and too many years of failing grades can lead to state intervention, including takeovers. And the federal measures are used to determine how federal resources are allocated to the lowest-performing schools.

Conversations about changing the state’s accountability system are already happening among lawmakers, prompted in part by Indiana’s new graduation pathways, which give students different options for earning a diploma.

Last legislative session, lawmakers considered a bill that would have shifted the focus of high schools’ state A-F grades from how students perform on state tests to how students perform after they graduate. That language ultimately did not pass, but a State Board of Education group is now tasked with recommending measurements that would better align high school state grades with graduation pathways.

The state education department does not have a member sitting on that panel.

McCormick also said it is “past time” for the state to take students’ standardized test scores out of teachers’ evaluations. The argument is that scores should be used to inform educators on what concepts students have mastered and where they need help, rather than a way of evaluating how well teachers are doing their jobs.

“ILEARN was a snapshot in time, it was a one-day assessment,” McCormick said. “It gave us information on where students are performing, but there are a lot of pieces to student performance beyond one assessment.”

As for why the first year of scores were low, McCormick said the new test was “much more rigorous” and weighed skills differently, prioritizing “college and career readiness” skills.

Scores are expected to be released publicly on Sept. 4.

ILEARN scores are expected to be low. Holcomb, McCormick don’t want that to hurt teacher pay, school grades.

2019-08-26T14:21:18+00:00

With the scores for Indiana’s new standardized test expected to be low, state officials fear that what was supposed to be a more reliable measure of student, teacher and school performance may prove meaningless.

ILEARN scores are said to be low across the state in both English and math. As a result, Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb is asking legislators to pass a “hold harmless” exemption, which would protect schools and teachers from being negatively affected.

Such a move undercuts the test’s role as an accountability metric for the state. It could also fuel the debate over whether the test is a useful measure of student achievement, especially if it isn’t comparable year-over-year.

The 2019 ILEARN results are slated to be made public Sept. 4, but concern over the impact of the new standardized test has been building since schools received their scores earlier this month. The state’s A-F school grading system and individual teacher evaluations weigh test scores heavily.

The first public call for a “hold harmless” legislation was an op-ed written by three Indiana superintendents. Those educators told Chalkbeat that teachers and administrators were largely surprised by how few students passed.

“We had principals literally in tears in my district when they started reviewing these scores,” said Tippecanoe Schools Superintendent Scott Hanback.

Then referring to a principal in his district, Hanback said, “He was anticipating with high hopes the scores on the new ILEARN, and it’s not going to look good, and he feels frustrated and he feels dejected. He was fearing conversations with teachers.”

Wayne Township Schools Superintendent Jeff Butts said that in some grades his district saw a 30 percent drop in the number of students who were passing compared to last year, when students in grades 3-8 students took ISTEP.

What about ILEARN caused low scores

ILEARN was administered for the first time this spring and is the state’s replacement for ISTEP, which was frequently criticized for being too long and fraught with technological issues.

In anticipation of low scores, Holcomb on Monday asked lawmakers to protect their effect on schools’ 2019 A-F grades and teacher evaluations. State Superintendent Jennifer McCormick also released a statement in support of a “hold harmless” exemption, confirming that scores will show lower achievement levels across the state in both English/language arts and math.

McCormick pointed to a few factors that caused the low scores in her statement, including the test’s new focus on college and career readiness, and where the state set cut scores that determine if a student passes or fails.

Lafayette Schools Superintendent Les Huddle, who co-wrote the op-ed with Hanback and West Lafayette Community Schools Superintendent Rocky Killion, told Chalkbeat that although the state’s academic standards haven’t changed, the test covered some “new information that has hardly been seen by students and teachers, and I think that’s unfair.”

All three superintendents also pointed to ILEARN’s format as a challenge. Unlike ISTEP, it is computer-adaptive, meaning it gives students more difficult questions as they answer correctly and easier questions as they answer incorrectly.

In a letter to schools sent last week, the state department of education said this new technology allows the test to measure standards that weren’t previously measured. The idea is to more thoroughly test their mastery of a subject, but it’s a format students may not be familiar with.

“[Teachers] saw some frustration in students,” Huddle said. “It became, ‘How quick can I click?’”

Butts said Wayne Township also ran into problems with accommodations that were supposed to be available to English language learners and students with special needs. He said the practice test was never available in Spanish, for example, and closed captioning wasn’t working for students who need hearing assistance.

Butts also said fewer students requested a rescore of the subjective portions of the test, like essay sections, because the window to do so opened before they knew if they passed or failed. Typically the district has a handful of students ask for a rescore, but didn’t have any this year.

Considering a ‘hold harmless’

Without a “hold harmless” teacher pay could be affected by lower scores. Schools are waiting for finalized scores in order to finish their 2018-19 teacher evaluations, which will be used to determine who qualifies for a raise or, subsequently, the state’s Teacher Appreciation grant. And any pay change negotiated this fall would be retroactive to the beginning of the school year.

The state has approved a hold-harmless exception for schools before. Scores sank after a new version of ISTEP, based on more rigorous academic standards, was introduced in 2015. In response, lawmakers passed legislation that prevented schools from receiving A-F letter grades that year that were lower than the ones they received the year before.

Scores for 2019 will drop even more significantly than they did in 2015, Killion said.

In their statement’s Monday morning, some lawmakers said they expected a transition period as students acclimate to the new test. But the General Assembly did not put any “hold harmless” exceptions in place preemptively.

Senate education leader Jeff Raatz, House Speaker Brian Bosma, and Senate President Pro Tem Rodric Bray joined Holcomb in releasing statements Monday morning in favor of a one-year hold harmless provision.

“I believe in our teachers and schools and know they are working hard to benefit our kids,” Bray said.

House education committee chair Rep. Bob Behning said legislators are taking a “hard look at our overall state accountability system,” but stopped short of explicitly calling for a hold harmless exception.

“While these results are not the ones we had hoped for, the value of Hoosier students and teachers is not defined by test scores, but by the learning being accomplished in the classroom,” he said.

In addition to the requested hold harmless this year, superintendents Huddle, Hanback and Killion said they’d like to see the state move away from this kind of standardized testing. All three leaders said they get more useful data from formative tests, which are taken throughout the year to track students’ growth. Typically by the time teachers see their students’ standardized test scores, those students have already moved to the next grade.

“If we want to produce letter grades that are appealing to the state then we could drop science and social studies and social skills,” Hanback said. “We could focus on making good test-takers, but I don’t believe that’s our objective.”

Federal law requires that states give yearly math and English/language arts exams to all students in grades 3-8 and high school.

Beginning in 2020, schools will be able to get preliminary score reports from ILEARN tests within 12 days of students completing the exams, according to the department of education.

For now, superintendents encourage parents to talk directly with their child’s teacher to get a sense for how they are doing, and how well the school is preparing them academically.

“I don’t think the shift to ILEARN was a bad thing,” Hanback said. “I would much rather have the technological ability that we have. But I also believe that … we need to be understanding that there is a transition period and with that period comes some unanticipated consequences.”

Indiana lawmakers take step to eliminate generous ‘growth-only’ grades for all schools, not just those in IPS

2019-02-18T19:51:31+00:00

A panel of Indiana lawmakers took a first step Monday to stop giving new and overhauled schools more generous state A-F grades that consider only how much students improve on tests and cut schools slack for low test scores.

The House Education Committee was initially looking to clamp down on Indianapolis Public Schools’ innovation schools, barring them from using student test score improvement as the sole determinant in their first three years of A-F grades. The more generous scale has boosted IPS’ performance as it launches a new strategy of partnering with charter operators, by allowing some innovation network schools to earn high marks despite overall low test scores.

But lawmakers expanded the scope of the bill to stop all schools from receiving what are known as “growth-only grades” after Chalkbeat reported that IPS’ overhauled high schools were granted a fresh start from the state — a move that would allow the high schools to tap into the more lenient grading system.

“I want to be consistent, and I felt like [grading] wasn’t consistent before, it was just hodge-podge,” said committee Chairman Bob Behning, an Indianapolis Republican. “We need to be transparent with parents.”

Read: Why it’s hard to compare Indianapolis schools under the A-F grading system

The committee unanimously approved the bill. If it passes into law, Indianapolis Public Schools stands to be one of the districts most affected. Growth-only grades for innovation schools have given the district’s data a boost, accounting for eight of the district’s 11 A grades in 2018. All of its high schools could also be eligible for growth-only grades this year.

Indianapolis Public Schools officials did not immediately respond to requests for comment. In the past, they have defended the two-tiered grading system, arguing that growth on state tests is an important window into how schools are educating students. Growth-only grades were originally intended to offer new schools time to get up and running before being judged on student test scores.

IPS was also the target of another provision in the updated bill that would add in stricter rules for when and how schools can ask for a “baseline reset” — the fresh start that its four high schools were recently granted.

Read: IPS overhauled high schools. Now, the state is giving them a fresh start on A-F

The resets, which districts can currently request from the state education department if they meet certain criteria that show they’ve undergone dramatic changes, wipe out previous test scores and other student performance data to give schools a fresh start. The reset schools are considered new schools with new state ID numbers.

The state determined a reset was necessary for IPS’ four remaining high schools because of the effects of decisions last year to close three campuses, shuffle staff, and create a new system a new system for students to choose their schools. Each school will start over with state letter grades in 2019.

But Behning and other lawmakers were skeptical that such changes merited starting over with accountability, and they were concerned that the process could occur without state board of education scrutiny. If passed into law, the bill would require the state board to approve future requests for accountability resets.

A state board staff member testified in favor of the change. The state education department did not offer comments to the committee.

Rep. Vernon Smith, a Democrat from Gary, said he didn’t like the fact that a reset could erase a school’s data, adding that he had concerns about “the transparency of a school corporation getting a new number.”

The amended bill wouldn’t remove the reset for IPS high schools, but by eliminating the growth-only grades, it would get rid of some of the incentive for districts to ask for a reset to begin with. Under current law, reset schools are considered new and qualify for growth-only grades. But the bill would require that reset schools be judged on the state’s usual scale, taking into account both test scores and test score improvement — and possibly leading to lower-than-anticipated state grades.

The amended bill would still offer a grading grace period to schools opening for the first time: New charter schools would be able to ask the state to give them no grade — known as a “null” grade — for their first three years, but schools’ test score performance and test score growth data would still be published online. Behning said he didn’t include district schools in the null-grade measure because they haven’t frequently opened new schools, but he said he’d be open to an amendment.

The bill next heads to the full House for a vote.

A new plan could drop test scores and graduation rates from Indiana high school grades

2019-02-06T21:44:14+00:00

Indiana Republicans want to give the state education board the power to drop state tests and graduation rates from high school ratings — controversial metrics that some critics have long said don’t tell the full story.

The bill, debated Wednesday in the House Education Committee, would dramatically change the high school measuring stick to look more like the state’s new graduation requirements and recommendations from Gov. Eric Holcomb’s panel on workforce development. The bill doesn’t spell out exactly how the state could measure post-high school preparedness, giving the board wiggle room to decide on its own.

More of the basis for the letter grades could be on career preparation and what students do after they graduate — continuing a trend among some education advocates in Indiana and other states to prioritize workforce development over strictly classroom learning.

Read: The future of education reform in Indiana is pushing career-readiness to the forefront

Rep. Bob Behning, the chairman of the committee, said the bill was intended to give the Indiana State Board of Education more leeway in designing the school rating system, so it doesn’t spell out specific ways to measure college or career preparedness. It wouldn’t require that ratings be based mostly on test scores and graduation rate — as the current grading model does — but those factors could still be included if the board chooses.

Some school leaders argued the changes could hold schools accountable for whether students have jobs or find success in college or the military after high school, outcomes that could be out of their control. Steve Baker, principal at Bluffton High School, and other educators gave examples of students who might take more time to figure out next steps, or those who might leave school or employment because of family, financial, or other personal reasons unrelated to their high school education.

“I did a great job preparing them, but what they decide to do after high school, I have zero influence,” Baker said. “Hold me accountable for things I can control.”

The bill’s author, Rep. Tony Cook, a Republican from Cicero, said he was frustrated by some educators’ testimony and questioned their commitment to school accountability.

“We are trying to prepare (students) for the future — we don’t want them to fail,” Cook said. “I ask what kind of accountability some of you really want to have … you can’t have it all the way.”

Cook also admonished some of the speakers for not taking into account changes that were made to the bill late Tuesday night, which several lawmakers, educators and education advocates said they had not had time to review. Cook’s amendment stripped some of the specifics from the bill, including adding metrics like how fluent English-learners are to elementary school accountability. Behning said the bill would receive a vote in the coming weeks, but likely no more public testimony would be permitted.

The change to the state’s school accountability system would be the latest in a long series of updates since schools were first rated about 10 years ago. Indiana’s State Board of Education is in the process of making changes to how the state rates schools. Currently, test scores, test score improvement, and graduation rate account for at least half of a typical high school’s state grade. If passed, Cook’s bill would give state board members a new set of guidance to consider as they continue that work.

It’s unclear how changing the drivers behind high school ratings — from test scores and graduation rate to other measures — would affect the ratings overall. Although only about one-third of high school students pass both English math state tests, dragging grades down, graduation rates are fairly high across the board. And it’s too early to know how state board members would attempt to change the ratings themselves, either keeping A-F letter grades or possibly going with another label. Last year, about two-thirds of schools received As or Bs under the state system.

State Superintendent Jennifer McCormick, who sits on the board, said the bill is an overstep by state lawmakers — the state board hasn’t talked about the bill at all, she said, nor about how they might change A-F grades since a work session a few months ago. McCormick’s education department, however, has moved forward on an updated rating model to meet new federal law.

“We’ve not voted on this, there’s been no resolution on this, there’s been no conversation about this,” McCormick said. “It lacked a lot of transparency.”

McCormick also accused lawmakers of leaving her and her team out on purpose, echoing concerns she raised late last year about political squabbles that ultimately led her to forgo a second term as state schools chief.

Read: The ‘toxic’ politics behind McCormick’s decision to reject a second term as Indiana schools chief

“We have to have these people who are in the weeds, in the trenches, be part of the conversation,” she said. “The only way that that’s sensical is if that’s purposeful. It’s just frustrating.”

Behning rejected the idea that McCormick and the education department have been left out. He said even if the plan is approved this year, it’ll take the state board a while to make changes, and they’ll do so with outside input.

“Jennifer has a voice,” he said.

This year more Indiana school districts got As from the state

2017-11-01T16:49:06+00:00

More than twice as many Indiana school districts received A grades this year than last year — up to 48 from 23 — according to state data released on Wednesday.

Overall, many districts’ grades stayed the same as last year, with most districts rated B and C, and just a handful given Ds and Fs.

The district grades were released at a meeting of the Indiana State Board of Education.

The small changes aren’t surprising — individual school grades, too, which were released in October, stayed mostly the same, as did state ISTEP test scores. Tests are major factors in the state accountability grades.

Find your school’s 2017 A-F grade here.

Individual school grades are considered far more important than district grades because a pattern of F grades can eventually bring consequences to a school, such as state intervention or takeover. District grades carry no threat of state sanctions.

State officials are required by law to give district grades, which are essentially an aggregate of school grades. Districts tend to use the grades for promotional purposes.

Overall for 2017, 16.6 percent of Indiana’s 289 school districts received As, 51.6 percent received Bs, 21.8 received Cs, 2.1 percent received Ds and 0.3 percent received Fs.

A little more than 7 percent of districts were not assigned a grade because they include a school that is appealing its individual 2017 grade.

In Marion County, Speedway Schools was the only district rated an A, but none were rated F. All except one had the same grade as last year.

Want to be a good principal? Teach, an innovation school leader says.

2017-10-25T21:01:47+00:00

A lot has changed at School 44 in just two years.

In January 2016, the elementary school for grades K-6 had suffered years of low test scores and failing grades from the state. It appeared on a list of campuses that could soon face takeover from the Indiana Board of Education. And two months later, that fate was forestalled when the Indianapolis Public Schools Board preempted the state and restarted it as an innovation school, with a new principal and new staff.

Now, in its second year as Global Prep Academy at School 44, the west side school of more than 500 students is no longer facing state takeover. Student passing rates on state tests jumped by 7.5 percentage points, and the school’s letter grade rose to an A (largely because innovation schools are graded by the state on a more generous scale during their first three years).

Kindergarten students at Global Prep Academy.

The school is led by Mariama Carson, a charismatic leader with nearly two decades of experience in urban education. Carson spent seven years as principal of Snacks Crossing, a neighborhood elementary school in Pike Township, before leaving to plan for a Spanish-English immersion charter school with funding from the nonprofit Mind Trust. Ultimately, she ended up working with IPS to restart School 44 as a charter school using the immersion model in the innovation network.

Carson offered an unusual piece of advice for other principals: Keep teaching. Principals are supposed to help teachers improve, so they need to practice those skills themselves, she said.

“I think a lot of principals get comfortable in offices and doing paperwork,” she said. “But you got to know the grind of a classroom, and you have to feel that tension between managing the kids and also teaching the skills.”

Chalkbeat sat down with Carson at School 44 last month to talk about what it’s been like to restart a school. Below are excerpts from the conversation, edited for clarity and brevity. (Carson also recently spoke to Chalkbeat about the Relay principal training program.)

What was last year like for you — and I guess I mean for you, but also for your school?

I liken it to when I first became a mother. You can read about what it’s like. You can imagine what the challenges will be, but there’s nothing like doing it yourself. And the first year of anything is hard.

We are very strong relationship-oriented people and really believe that this work is predicated on strong relationships. When you are new to a place, though, it’s hard to build that with everybody at the same time.

Teachers were building relationships with each other and with us as administrators. And kids were building trust with their teachers. And parents were building trust. All those things happening at once were really hard.

Everything was new. No one knew the way. We were creating the way as we did it.

It was the most challenging year I’d ever had professionally. Just seeing how the teachers rose to the challenges and made adjustments and were flexible beyond belief has been amazing.

Every parent we call shows up. So that tells me that the trust we worked hard to build last year is intact.

Do you have advice for other principals?

A principal’s best work is done in a classroom. My administrators, we all taught. So when we saw kids struggling, or we saw teachers struggling to make the content accessible to kids, we taught. I taught reading. I taught math. And I modeled for teachers what that looks like.

That’s the best part of my job. I never want to lose my teaching chops, and I always tell principals, keep your teaching chops because you need to be able to bust them out to work with kids who struggle. And then for kids, when your principal is teaching, it’s like, “Oh! I want to be a part of it.”

One of the things we saw mid-year with our math data for grade five and six, is the rigor was not there. So last year, we took the standards that needed to be taught and we broke them apart into what we call a math seminar. Based on the groups the kids were in, I taught a math seminar three days a week. I did the lesson planning.

Teachers have to see that too. We know how to exit plan, and we know how to use the data from the exit slips in order to inform instruction daily.

Why is it important for you to keep teaching?

The most important job I think of a principal is to coach teachers. If you’re an instructional leader, and you can’t coach instruction, and you don’t know how to do it — I don’t know that makes you an effective coach.

Any coach that’s not willing to get their hands dirty and get on that floor with the kids, to make the learning accessible, I think that’s limited coaching.

I know it’s not realistic for me to teach five days a week all day, because I’ve got other responsibilities. But I never want to stop doing that. I always look for opportunities to do it. I’m doing right now first grade — I’m teaching first-grade writing workshop.

Partly because I enjoy it, but teachers need to see, ‘I’m in this with you.’

You were a principal for years before this. … How is (being principal at an innovation school) different?

I was there for 7 years. But here’s the difference. When you are a principal in a district, or my experience in a district, I had an amazing superintendent. Mr. Jones, who was my mentor and still is, he lined everything up how it was supposed to be. There wasn’t a whole lot of decision making about how it looks in your building. When you open a new school, every decision is yours. That is the difference. I do attribute a lot of the gains to my Pike (Township) systems. A lot of stuff that we do here came from Pike. A lot of teachers on my leadership team came from Pike. So we had the same understanding about how to move the needle.

I always, always, always want to be in the position of a learner. I had grown and I had evolved. I felt like I was ready to do some things differently. Within a district that was tightly run and very well run, there wasn’t autonomy and flexibility.

I wanted that. I was ready for that. So that’s why I took the plunge.

More Hoosier schools got As from the state in 2017. But most school grades didn’t change.

2017-10-04T14:01:16+00:00

As with this year’s ISTEP scores, not much changed when it came to 2017 A-F grades for Indiana schools.

Compared to 2016, almost a quarter of schools improved by one or more letter grades in 2017, and about the same number saw grades drop. But more than half of schools ended up with the same grade as last year. This is not surprising, because test passing rates have been stagnant across the state — and tests are still major factors in the state accountability grades.

Find your school’s 2017 ISTEP scores here

The Indiana State Board of Education released 2017 A-F school grades at its meeting today.

“I am encouraged by the results of our current accountability grades as an indication of the great education Indiana students are receiving,” said state Superintendent Jennifer McCormick in a statement. “Our work, however, is not finished.”

The number of A-rated schools increased slightly from last year to almost 30 percent. The number of F-rated schools barely changed at almost 6 percent. Almost two-thirds of schools received an A or B (the same percent as last year), while 15 percent received a D or F, virtually unchanged.

This is the second year that Indiana has used a new accountability system that equally weights test score improvement and passing rates. Adding in the test improvement shows how schools are tackling the tougher tests that are part of more rigorous academic standards that started in 2014.

When you separate proficiency from test score growth, a little more than 2 percent of schools received the highest passing rates for elementary and middle school students, while almost three quarters improved. Even though it remains difficult for schools to get students to high scores, most seem to be getting students to do better than last year. In high schools, even fewer students are at or above proficiency, but most are showing growth as well.

Board member David Freitas said he worries that the test score improvement piece is overshadowing how few schools are meeting a “minimum competency.”

“I’m concerned that the growth data … is masking a real problem in Indiana,” Freitas said. “Only 14 percent of (elementary) schools are in the A and B category. That is very, very serious.”

Poor grades can bring consequences for schools such as state intervention or takeover.

But the state’s A-F model is expected to change. A new plan to comply with the federal Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) will bring more factors into state grades, such as English proficiency of students learning English and a non-test-based measure like attendance. It’s not yet clear how that will affect the distribution of grades across the state.

However, the state isn’t ready to adopt the new model just yet. Instead, Indiana will issue schools two sets of metrics for 2018 — one grade from the state and another that will be reported to the federal government.

Read: Indiana has a curious plan to sidestep federal rules — give schools two A-F grades next year.

Indiana 2017 A-F grade breakdown

Grade	Number of schools	Percent of schools
A	620	29.5 percent
B	688	32.7 percent
C	454	21.6 percent
D	190	9 percent
F	124	5.9 percent
No grade	28	1.3 percent

Marion County 2017 A-F grade breakdown

Grade	Number of schools	Percent of schools
A	32	17.3 percent
B	35	18.9 percent
C	38	20.5 percent
D	42	22.7 percent
F	37	20 percent
No grade	1	0.5 percent

Find your school’s 2017 grade using our interactive database.

Indiana has a curious plan to sidestep federal rules — give schools two A-F grades next year.

2017-09-20T04:01:15+00:00

Indiana schools could get two A-F grades in 2018 — one official grade based on state requirements, and a separate calculation based on the new federal Every Student Succeeds Act.

The proposal comes as changes in graduation rate calculations and dual credit teacher training have complicated the state’s plan to comply with the new law, which went into effect this school year.

There was an opportunity to make adjustments when the plan was introduced in June, but Gov. Eric Holcomb and Indiana education officials endorsed it with few major changes. It’s unclear why separate state and federal grades weren’t considered earlier.

The proposal highlights the pressure Indiana and other states face to quickly adjust to ESSA and changing expectations from Betsy DeVos’ Department of Education. A number of regulations were either thrown out when she came into office or could not be finished in time by the Obama Administration. Indiana, too, saw a dramatic election that brought in a new schools chief, governor and other key education policymakers.

The idea to create dual standards was revealed tonight when Ken Folks, chief of governmental affairs for the Indiana Department of Education, spoke with educators and community members at Noblesville East Middle School.

Adam Baker, state department of education spokesman, said officials need more time to figure out how to meet the federal rules for graduation rate and new regional rules regarding dual credit teaching. Both factor heavily into high school A-F grades, and the changes could result in lower grades for many schools.

“We are trying to support schools and trying to do what’s best to make this transition a lot smoother,” Baker said.

Read: Educators to state officials: ‘Indiana needs just one diploma’

Here’s how it might look:

About a year from now, after students take the spring 2018 ISTEP test, schools will get a letter grade from the state that won’t encompass any of the changes proposed in Indiana’s ESSA plan.

The state grade would determine where a school falls on the timeline for state intervention — public schools, for example, can only have four consecutive years of F grades before takeover or other serious improvement plans are on the table.

But nothing about the ESSA rules will change or pause. Unlike in 2016, federal officials have no plans to give states a reprieve from accountability sanctions. Every school will still receive a percentage calculation based on federal guidelines using the same 100-point scale that state letter grades are based on, where 90 percent is an A, 80 is percent a B, and so on.

The federal calculation would count under rules for identifying struggling schools and those that govern Title I funding. For example, any high school where the four-year federal graduation rate is lower than 67 percent would be considered under “comprehensive support” from the state.

Conversations with the governor’s office and the state board around the specifics of the state/federal split are still happening, Baker said, and the dual system would only be for 2018.

Grades based on 2017 ISTEP tests that are set to come out next month, which schools have already seen, are not part of this change.

This idea was floated a month ago at a state board of education work session that was held to build consensus around the state’s ESSA plan. Board members asked state Superintendent Jennifer McCormick and her staff why there couldn’t just be two grades next year.

At the time, Lee Ann Kwiatkowski, McCormick’s chief of staff, told board members that in the past, Indiana did operate two accountability systems, one for state and one for federal.

“The reason Indiana moved from two accountability systems to one was because it was confusing and caused chaos,” she said. “We would have schools that could look very different in the two systems.”

But as the ESSA plan’s due date rapidly approached and diploma and dual credit situations remained in limbo, Baker said the department changed its mind. Keeping the state’s grading system consistent, even if it meant a separate federal piece, ended up making more sense than a series of state grades with big fluctuations.

“The extra time wasn’t like, ‘OK, let’s give ourselves a fifth quarter,” Baker said. “It was more or less like, this is coming down the pipeline — what can we do (for schools)? Our hope is that things will change.”

See all of Chalkbeat Indiana’s ESSA coverage here.

Schools with lots of transfer students say A-F labels don’t fit

2017-02-20T17:40:21+00:00

Schools with large numbers of kids who transfer in or out should get an extra grade from Indiana’s A-F system, a legislative committee said Thursday.

The proposal, backed by both Democrats and Republicans on the House Education Committee, would give schools a second A-F grade based just on the scores of students who have attended for at least a year.

The goal is to account for schools with “high mobility,” common in poor neighborhoods where families move frequently and kids sometimes change schools several times in a single school year. When kids change schools, their test scores often sink. Lawmakers argued the schools where they end up on test day can be unfairly saddled with a low grade that doesn’t necessarily reflect the quality of teaching at the school.

Even so, the schools will still be judged the same as all schools in Indiana on their first A-F grade.

The proposal was added as an amendment to House Bill 1384, which is mostly aimed at clarifying how high school graduation rate is calculated. The bill passed out of committee today, 8-4. It next heads to the full House for a vote, likely later this week.

The amended bill would require the Indiana State Board of Education to first define a “high-mobility” school. Then, starting in the 2018-19 school year, the board would assign those schools both the typical grade based primarily on state tests and a second grade that only considers the test and other academic data of students who have attended the school for one year or more.

The second grade could not be used by the state board to make decisions about state sanctions, the bill says. But it would help parents and others better understand the circumstances at the school, said Rep. Bob Behning, the bill’s author and chairman of the education committee.

“Especially in our urban centers, there are several schools … that have very high mobility rates,” Behning said. “We could all recognize that if you’re being moved from school A to school B to school C to school D in a year, it’s going to be very difficult for your performance to be where it needs to be.”

The bill also makes a similar change to high school graduation rates, which would help Indiana better comply with new federal law, Behning said. The bill would alter the graduation rate calculation so that students who drop out would only count in a school’s rate if they attended that school for at least 90 percent of the school year. Otherwise, their graduation data gets counted at the previous school they attended for the longest time.

Melissa Brown, head of Indiana Connections Academy, one of the largest online schools in the state, testified in support of the bill. She said the graduation rate change and second letter grade better reflect the work they’re doing with students.

“We really believe that if we can keep a student, we can help them,” Brown said.

Virtual schools have performed poorly on state tests, which some school leaders argue is because they serve a challenging population of students, including those who frequently move and switch schools, come to school far behind grade level and have other learning difficulties that make them more difficult to educate.

Read: The broken promise of Indiana’s online schools

Indiana Connections Academy sees about 20 to 25 percent of students come and go each year, Brown said. Other virtual schools, such as Hoosier Academies, have reported more than double that rate.

Although the rates for individual schools could vary widely, Beech Grove schools had the highest district mobility rate in 2015 in Marion County, where 20.1 percent of students left a Beech Grove school to go outside the district, according to state data. Franklin Township had the lowest, with 8.5 percent. Generally, transfer within districts was much lower.

In IPS, the rate was 18.4 percent for students leaving to attend a school in another district, and 8.2 percent of students left their home school to attend another in IPS.

Brown said she thinks the second school grade could help all schools that see high turnover, but it also could dispel some misinformation about what virtual schools are for — it’s not a “magic pill” for kids who are far behind, she said, a scenario she encounters frequently.

“At the end of the day, it’s really about what’s best for the kid,” Brown said. “And it’s not best to send a student to another school with two weeks left in the semester expecting a miracle to happen.”

Like schools, fewer Indiana districts got As in 2016

2017-01-11T20:22:35+00:00

School districts across the state saw fewer A grades in 2016 when the Indiana State Board of Education released the latest data today.

Although for individual schools, poor grades can bring consequences such as state intervention or takeover, for districts, there are no sanctions. Overall for 2016, 7.9 percent of Indiana districts received As, 60.5 percent received Bs, 29.4 received Cs, 1.73 percent received Ds and 0.35 percent received an F.

Cynthia Roach, director of testing and accountability for the state board, said officials expected grades to cluster in the middle of the scale — more Bs and Cs and fewer As and Fs. Those results are consistent with trends seen in individual school A-F grades and 2016 ISTEP scores, which dropped for the second straight year.

Last year, lawmakers voted to shield schools and districts from dramatically lower 2015 ISTEP scores, the result of a new more difficult test. As a result, 2015 grades were only changed from 2014 grades if they were better. That means 2016 is the first year that grades have been released showing the true impact of a more challenging test.

But generally, it’s tough to compare 2016 to 2015, and not just because of the more challenging 2015 ISTEP test and the resulting action by lawmakers. Indiana is also using a brand new model to calculate A-F school and district grades for 2016, in which test scores and test score improvement is weighted equally. Other non-test-based measures are also included in the new formula. Previously, the most important factor was whether kids passed the test.

In Marion County, only Speedway Schools got an A grade from the state in 2016. Franklin and Perry townships got Bs, Indianapolis Public Schools got a D, and the rest of the county’s districts got Cs. No district received an F.

McCormick, at her first state board meeting today where she was elected board chairwoman, said testing is one of her priorities, and she’s hoping to examine both state tests and how the state measures schools as she moves forward with her administration.

“I know the field is frustrated,” McCormick said. “Obviously we have work to do in the assessment arena. We’re going to tackle that… We can’t have that conversation without talking about accountability in the same breath.”

A-F grades are lower across Indiana. Here’s why IPS isn’t sweating its Fs

2016-12-14T03:18:21+00:00

The days when the state would take over failing Indianapolis Public Schools appear to be over — at least for the foreseeable future.

That’s the impression that IPS Superintendent Lewis Ferebee gave today as he responded to the latest round of A-F grades released by the state. Eleven of the 68 schools in IPS received repeated F grades. But while in the past this would likely have drawn state intervention, Ferebee said he is confident that the district’s own efforts at the schools will keep state officials away.

“We haven’t gotten any indication that there is plans for intervention” from the Indiana State Board of Education, Ferebee said. “I think they’ve appreciated that we’ve been much more proactive in addressing our schools that have struggled with student achievement over time.”

Back in 2012, the state took over four chronically low-performing schools. But since Ferebee took the helm in 2013, IPS has taken aggressive steps to overhaul struggling schools. It has “restarted” some schools with innovation status, meaning principals have been given broad authority to replace teachers and overhaul budgets. It has targeted others for closure.

Most of those efforts are only just getting started, and last year’s scores meant that IPS had just three schools get As — 4.4 percent of the district’s 68 total schools.

Across Indiana, 23.6 percent of schools got the top grade — an accomplishment made more difficult by changes to the way the grades were calculated this year.

For the first time, the state counted equally whether students passed ISTEP and how much students’ scores improved or declined. Officials said repeatedly that the new formula would mean more schools getting Bs and Cs than As and Fs.

And indeed, many Indiana schools appeared to do worse this year than in 2015. That’s not a huge surprise because in addition to the warnings from state officials, many Indiana schools also saw lower ISTEP passing rates this year.

Only eight IPS schools saw their state grades go up, and 30 schools had lower grades from the state than in 2015. Two district schools, Cold Spring and School 56, saw their grades drop from As to Fs. Both had sharp declines in the ISTEP passing rates after the state switched to a harder test in 2015.

One of the schools that might have received state intervention in the past is School 69, which received its sixth consecutive F from the state. But Ferebee is hoping the school won’t face those repercussions because IPS already has restarted the school by turning it over to an outside manager.

The north side elementary school was converted to innovation status this fall, and it is now being managed by Kindezi Academy, an Indianapolis charter school in the same network as Enlace Academy.

Another IPS school, School 44, today received its fifth consecutive F from the state. It was restarted as Global Prep, an innovation school offering Spanish-English immersion. Other F schools, including School 42, School 63 and John Marshall Middle School, have already been identified by the district as possible innovation school restarts.

The other IPS schools on the repeated F list were: School 48, Arlington High School and Arlington, Northwest, George Washington, Broad Ripple and Crispus Attucks junior high schools.

Find your school’s 2016 A-F grade

2016-12-13T18:12:04+00:00

The Indiana State Board of Education released 2016 A-F school grades at its meeting today.

The grades come after many schools in the state saw dips in their ISTEP test scores for the second year in a row, but grades this year are based on more than just how many kids passed the test. For the first time, the state is giving equal weight to whether students improved from one year to the next in its grade calculations.

Here’s how state grades broke down this year:

A: 501 schools, 23.6%
B: 827 schools, 38.9%
C: 482 schools, 22.7%
D: 187 schools, 8.8%
F: 130 schools, 6.1%

To see how your school fared compared to 2015, check our our searchable database below.

Feds say Indiana can drop its A-F system. But does it want to?

2016-11-28T23:59:45+00:00

If Indiana wants to make changes to its A-F school grading system, new rules from the U.S. Department of Education announced today could make it much easier.

The question is: Does Indiana want to make a change? And what would an overhauled school rating system look like?

The new rules come with the Every Student Succeeds Act, passed last year by Congress as a replacement for No Child Left Behind. ESSA is designed to give states and local schools more control over education decisions.

Today’s announcements from federal officials about ESSA included two big changes. First, the law won’t go into full effect until the 2018-19 school year, which gives states more time to create their plans and transition. And second, the federal education department will no longer require a single rating, such as an A-F grade, for every school.

That could be a help to Jennifer McCormick, who earlier this month was elected state superintendent after defeating Glenda Ritz. McCormick said during the campaign she thought Indiana should consider more than a single A-F grade when considering school academic performance.

That’s also a position that Ritz has advocated for in her four years in office. But there are many unknowns about how, and even whether, changes will come.

The election of Donald Trump as president means a new administration will be in charge of interpreting and enforcing the ESSA law, so it’s possible some guidance from the federal government could change after he takes office in January.

And even if the flexibility to drop A-F grades remains, it would be up to the Indiana legislature to change state law if it wanted to follow McCormick’s advice that schools be labeled differently.

“There’s quite a bit of turmoil at the national level, as you might expect,” State Superintendent Glenda Ritz today told a committee of educators gathered to explore how Indiana accountability could change under ESSA. “I’d like to get some recommendations moving forward.”

Under the new rules, states actually don’t have to give schools specific ratings anymore. Now, they can do as little as categorizing schools based on how much support they need, something the law already requires they track.

For example, schools that fall in the bottom 5 percent based on state standardized test scores must be reported to the federal education department in a category indicating they need “comprehensive support.” Schools that need to improve the test performance of just some groups of students, like English language learners or those in special education, will be reported as needing “targeted support.” Under the education department’s categories, many Indiana schools that don’t fall into those two previous groups would simply be labeled as “other.”

Ritz said she wasn’t opposed to grouping schools “if it’s talking about support. That’s heading in a better direction at the federal level.”

But Indiana has its own laws, including the requirement that schools earn a single A-F grade, based mostly on test scores. There has been no signal yet from legislative leaders that they wish to change A-F grades.

A-F grade supporters say the grades are easy to understand for parents and community members looking to make decisions about their children’s education.

But while state law requires a single grade, it gives the Indiana State Board of Education and state superintendent the power to decide how the grade is calculated. The A-F model was overhauled during the past couple years to include more data that goes beyond test scores, such as measures of student participation in college entrance exams and advanced courses at the high school level.

Similar changes to add non-test-based measures, now required by the new federal law, are also in the works for A-F grades for elementary and middle schools.

Indiana Department of Education officials today proposed creating an index to combine data the state currently collects on discipline and chronic absenteeism, two areas Ritz says are “warning signs” that can indicate schools need more help. That could be one option of a measure to add to the A-F grade calculation.

Cari Whicker, an elementary school teacher on the committee who also is a state board member, said she knows that data is important to include, but sometimes those factors can be beyond a school’s control. She thinks a student survey, or a measure focused more on the quality of a school’s atmosphere or culture, could be a better tool.

“I can control the climate of a building,” Whicker said. “I’d like this to be one area where we be a little bit innovative and try something and ask kids.”

Part of the challenge of using a survey is that it would require the state to contract with an outside company, which takes time and costs more money than simply using data the state already collects.

This committee is set to have one more meeting in mid-December.

The basics of Glenda Ritz: A lone voice at the top against Republican education agenda

2016-11-03T21:00:00+00:00

This is one of two stories summarizing the basics facts about Indiana’s two major party candidates for state superintendent. A more detailed story about Glenda Ritz’s policy positions can be found here. To learn more about Jennifer McCormick, go here. To see all of Chalkbeat’s “basics” stories, go here. To read all of Chalkbeat’s 2016 election coverage, go here.

Tune in to our live blog on Election Day for highlights from the field and updates on the races as results trickle in.

In one whirlwind year, Glenda Ritz went from a political unknown, working as a library media specialist in Indianapolis’ Washington Township, to a stunning 2012 election victory over then-state Superintendent Tony Bennett. In the process, she became perhaps the state’s best-known Democratic officeholder.

Her win over Bennett was one of the most shocking Indiana political upsets in recent memory. She defeated the high profile and well funded Bennett, known nationally as a champion of school accountability and school choice, by skillfully rallying discontented educators and their friends and family.

The win also thrust her into a pitched political battle over control of education policy at the statehouse. Ritz took office in 2013 as the only Democrat in a statewide elected post in Indiana, and is now the highest profile skeptic of a series of Republican-led reforms instituted in the state since 2010.

But since taking office, Ritz’s efforts to put in place policies she prefers, especially regarding testing and accountability, have mostly been thwarted. Tension between Ritz and the Indiana State Board of Education deteriorated into a struggle for control of the state board meetings in late 2013.

Increasingly, Ritz has blamed Gov. Mike Pence for her political woes and he has returned fire by criticizing her handling of key issues, such as testing and school accountability.

A highly rated teacher

Ritz, was one of only 155 national board certified teachers in Indiana when she ran for office. That is a challenging credential awarded to applicants who demonstrate high quality teaching through a variety of tasks. Indiana has fewer national board certified teachers than any of the states that border it, with thousands fewer than Illinois and Ohio.

Ritz also served on the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, which awards national board certification to teachers. She has two masters degrees in education and is certified to teach at all grade levels and in special education. She has been named teacher of the year at two different schools.

Age 58 at the time of her election, Ritz was born and raised in Lafayette, Ind. and graduated from Ball State University, moving to Indianapolis after marrying Gary Ritz. They have two adult sons.

It was the institution of Indiana’s third grade reading requirement, a priority for Bennett, that spurred Ritz to enter the race, she said. Ritz said she opposed the Bennett-led change to require children to pass a standardized test or potentially be blocked from advancing to fourth grade. Instead, Ritz advocated for overhauling state English tests so they could be used to determine each child’s reading level, information she argued was more useful to teachers to guide students toward proficiency.

A union leader

Ritz also was active in Washington Township’s teachers union, serving as president for 15 years. In that role, she helped negotiate pay raises, benefits and working conditions with the school administration and had authority over the the local union’s managerial functions, such as dues collection and organizing.

During that period, Ritz also served on the board of the Indiana State Teachers Association, her union’s statewide organization. ISTA is affiliated with the National Education Association, the nation’s largest teachers union, and struggled through major financial woes during the period Ritz was on the board. Ritz was a resource for ISTA on teacher quality issues. In 2011, she spoke publicly against over reliance on test scores as a factor in teacher evaluation. As the state legislature worked on a bill overhauling evaluation that year, Ritz represented ISTA in talks with legislators.

She estimated she spend more than 150 hours working with lawmakers on language that established four levels of teacher performance. The final bill included test scores as a factor in evaluation but did not require a teacher’s student test results to count for a specific percentage of the teacher’s rating. Other states required as much as 50 percent of a teacher’s rating to based on student test scores. Indiana left the percentage up to each school district to decide.

Ritz also signed on as a plaintiff for an ISTA-supported unsuccessful lawsuit charging school vouchers were unconstitutional. The Indiana Supreme Court ultimately disagreed and upheld the voucher program.

The campaign

Ritz first emerged as Bennett’s opponent in June of 2012, when she was selected as the Democratic candidate at the party’s state convention. By then, Bennett had already built a huge money advantage in the race, one that would persist through the election. By Election Day, Ritz had raised about $350,000, with ISTA as her largest single contributor. Bennett out raised her by $1.5 million.

With limited dollars, the Ritz campaign depended heavily on building support through word-of-mouth and social media. Teachers, especially union members, who supported her reached out to their personal and online networks, urging friends, family and acquaintances to vote for her. The campaign made skillful use of social media, posting regularly on Facebook and Twitter about her effort to defeat Bennett and calling on supporters to spread the word online.

David Dresslar, executive director of the University of Indianapolis’ Center for Excellence in Leadership of Learning, called it “one of the first successful Facebook campaigns in Indiana.” On Election Day, Ritz earned 52 percent with 1.3 million votes, more than any other candidate on the ballot in any race received, including Pence, the newly elected Republican governor.

Democrats and opponents of Bennett were euphoric to have a major victory, and to have dealt defeat to an education reform movement some viewed as anti-teacher. But getting Indiana to change direction from the policies it had pursued for eight years under former Gov. Mitch Daniels would prove even more challenging.

Taking on Bennett

In July of 2013, emails provided by the Indiana Department of Education to reporters led to explosive accusations that Bennett had manipulated the new rules for Indiana’s A to F school grading system to improve the grade of a favored charter school. The school, Christel House Academy, had a string of A grades but was poised to fall to a C under a new calculation method Bennett championed. The schools founder, Christel DeHaan, had contributed to Bennett’s campaign in the past.

Emails showed he raised concerns and asked for a review. Staffers sprang into action, discussing a variety of ways to improve Christel House’s grade. Ultimately, they focused on the school’s odd grade configuration — serving grades K to 10. Ultimately they ruled that some of the high school measures that make up a school’s grade could be dropped out of the calculation for schools that do not have all four high school grades. The change raised grades for Christel House and 12 other schools statewide.

Ritz’s communications director, David Galvin, later revealed himself to be the person who discovered and looked through the old emails, which Bennett staffers believed had been deleted. He acknowledged telling a reporter about the emails but said it was journalists who ultimately used public record law to unearth them and reveal their contents.

In the immediate wake of the email revelations, Bennett resigned from his new job as the education commissioner in Florida. Republican-appointed consultants who reviewed Bennett’s actions for the Indiana legislature later ruled the Christel House change “plausible,” prompting Bennett supporters to blame Ritz for unfairly tarring his reputation. But soon after, the Indiana’s ethics commission brought charges against Bennett for using his state office for campaign purposes, based on the email revelations.

In the end, Bennett was found guilty of violating state ethics laws prohibiting the use of public resources for political campaigns and paid a $5,000 fine.

Managing a challenge

After some early victories working with Republicans, including Pence, Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard and legislative leaders, Ritz has found managing the politics of her position increasingly difficult. The final 2013 state budget, approved by the legislature in April, gave Pence more latitude to manage state education funds, which allowed him in August to create the Center for Education and Career Innovation.

The center, using money that had previously been managed by the education department under the state superintendent, hired separate staff for the Indiana State Board of Education. Pence said the center was designed to coordinate education policy across multiple agencies, including the education department, the state board, the Education Roundtable and the Commission for Higher Education.

But Ritz said it was a power grab.

Tensions were raised among Ritz and state board, as board members used their new staff to propose agenda items and policies that Ritz objected to. Sometimes she angered other board members by using her procedural power as chairwoman to block votes on some agenda items.

Ritz even sued the rest of the board in October of 2013, arguing the other board members violated state transparency laws when they sent a letter to Republican legislative leaders asking for their help to calculate school A to F grades without discussing it publicly. A judge tossed out the suit because Ritz filed it without Attorney General Greg Zoeller’s assistance.

In November of 2013, the political battle reached a new height when Ritz ended and walked out of a school board meeting rather than allow a vote on a motion by board member Brad Oliver. She said she feared the motion would give CECI control over a process to revise A to F grading, which she believed fell under her purview.

In December of 2013, the board met with Chris Amundson, executive director of the National Association of State Boards of Education, seeking to end their conflicts. In their last meeting of the year, they made minor changes to their own rules, including the process for how items can be placed on the agenda.

Standards, NCLB and more tension
In 2014, Ritz was at the center of several key education debates in Indiana.

Early in the year, Ritz found an unlikely ally in Pence on a critical issue: state academic standards. Indiana adopted Common Core standards in 2010, part of a group that included 46 total states, and began implementing them in grades K to 2. But in 2013, lawmakers passed a bill calling for a reconsideration of what Indiana’s standards should be. In 2014, the legislature voided the decision to adopt Common Core and ordered new standards written.

Ritz and Pence both favored the idea, believing Indiana was better off with its own standards. Ritz led the creation of new standards, which were blessed by Pence and passed by the Education Roundtable and the state board in April.

But the good feelings were short lived. A new controversy soon put Pence and Ritz at odds again.

In May, the U.S. Department of Education sent Ritz a letter demanding she explain how Indiana would keep promises it made in 2012 to make changes to state policy in return for release from some sanctions of the federal No Child Left Behind law. Federal officials wanted to know how Indiana’s new standards and new tests would qualify as “college and career ready,” and also asked for evidence the state was adequately monitoring its lowest rated schools.

Ritz and Pence traded jabs about whether she had dropped the ball on monitoring. The state did earn an extension of the waiver, but Ritz remains at odds with Pence and state board members over those and other issues.

A run for governor

In 2015, Pence’s move to take on Ritz directly, by challenging her authority to lead the state board with the aide of the legislature, was the final straw, Ritz said. But the campaign didn’t last.

On June 4, Ritz is expected to announce a run for the Democratic nomination for governor, potentially setting up a direct show down with Pence.

The latest battle began when Pence made a dramatic move: he announced suddenly late last year that he planned to dissolve CECI. But there was a catch. He also asked Ritz to give up her seat as chair of the state board

The 2015 legislature pushed ahead with that idea, advancing bills that would remove the guarantee in state law that the superintendent must chair the state board, allowing a vote of the board members that effectively would remove Ritz as chair.

After a long battle, Pence got the legislature to approve the change, but not until 2017. Ritz complained other bills that gave the state board new powers over policies she previously controlled left her little choice but to consider a run against Pence.

After a month of weighing the possibilities, Ritz announced she, indeed, would be a candidate for the Democratic nomination for governor. The campaign lasted just 10 weeks.

Instead, she announced her plans to run for re-election as state superintendent in 2016.

-Updated November 2016

Every Indianapolis superintendent signed this letter criticizing how the state is replacing ISTEP

2016-10-27T21:02:00+00:00

Indiana’s effort to fix its state test and replace ISTEP is going too slowly, and the steps to improve the exam aren’t even going forward in order, Marion County superintendents argued in a blunt open letter.

The letter was released today by the Indiana Urban Schools Association and was signed by superintendents across the state, including every public school superintendent in Marion County. It lobbed some pointed criticism at members of two major state committees designed to find a new state exam and update the A-F grade model.

The letter calls out the Dec. 1 deadline by which the state’s ISTEP replacement panel has to make recommendations to the Indiana General Assembly — as well as the spring 2018 deadline lawmakers set last year for when Indiana students would take the new test — as possibly unrealistic.

The panel has just two more meetings before Dec. 1, and they have yet to agree on any specific testing plan.

Read: A Common Core exam or another year of ISTEP? Lawmakers weigh unpopular options

Plus, the superintendents argue that new accountability rules should be set before a test is picked to replace ISTEP. Indiana is also in the midst of altering it’s A-F school grading system to comply with new federal law that is expected to go into effect next school year. The Indiana Department of Education is planning to submit a draft of that A-F system plan to the U.S. Department of Education in March.

Testing changes should wait until that plan is done, the letter argues.

“Changes in our accountability system and the expectations for schools in Indiana that result from the impact of this historic federal legislation must be considered in the test chosen to assess whether or not these expectations are achieved, the letter states.

The ISTEP replacement panel next meets Nov. 15, and the accountability committee is set to meet Nov. 18.

The entire letter from the Indiana Urban Schools Association to committee members can be read in full below.

Indiana’s students, educators, parents and community members are concerned. New assessments require the state to first address improvements necessary for a student-centered accountability system.

IUSA submitted a letter to the State Superintendent of Public Instruction last August expressing strong concern about the roles, timelines, possible overlap, and impact of the work of the Indiana Accountability Committee and Assessment Committee. We appreciate the State Superintendent and members of her staff hearing these concerns and discussing them at our October 19th meeting. However, IUSA – a consortium of 38 urban school districts representing 350,000 Hoosier students – feels an urgent need to share our concerns directly with members of these state committees.

IUSA’s primary concern is the fast-approaching deadline for the Assessment Committee to make its recommendation for a test. That test will assess student learning. It also will be a critical part of a yet- to-be-determined accountability system to reflect how schools and districts meet accountability. IUSA members share the belief that student assessments should be designed to ensure that schools and classroom educators have timely and useful data to inform the teaching and learning decisions made at the local level, and these assessments require a student-centered accountability system. We care deeply that the assessment selected will make that a reality for Indiana’s educational environment.

However, given the looming deadlines, the more pressing concern is that the State may be reaching a decision identifying an assessment before reaching decisions about how schools and districts will be held accountable. The current scenario of selecting a test before completing the accountability system that incorporates the new requirements of the Every Student Succeeds Act clearly is an example of making a decision out of sequence. Changes in our accountability system and the expectations for schools in Indiana that result from the impact of this historic federal legislation must be considered in the test chosen to assess whether or not these expectations are achieved. The present sequence sets up a pattern where the test chosen determines the architecture of the accountability system. This seems to be “putting the cart before the horse.” This emphatic point was clearly stated to the State Superintendent’s staff at the October IUSA meeting where IUSA also stressed its desire to see adjustments to the accountability system to make it fair, equitable, supportive, and a valid assessment of the corporation and schools’ effectiveness. Accountability decisions and the foreknowledge of those measures are paramount to the credibility of any test selected. And, just as a flawed accountability system will detract from the credibility of a test selection, implementation with fidelity must be a guarantee. Even a perfect test that is not implemented with fidelity will yield less than desired results.

We urge members of the Indiana Assessment Committee to understand that replacement of the ISTEP+ must be aligned with Indiana Academic Standards, must be able to accurately measure students, schools and school corporations using a known set of accountability measures. We urge members of the Indiana Accountability Committee to ensure that the needs of all are considered, weighed, and included to provide equitable weightings that reflect the progress of the student population.

This is a not a political matter – this is a matter of urgent need for ensuring that Indiana’s education system is designed for the improvement of students, to help educators and all constituents understand what is necessary to prepare all students for post-secondary opportunities in college and careers.

Sincerely,

IUSA Member District Superintendents – Terry Thompson, Anderson, Dr. Jim Roberts, Bartholomew, Dr. Paul Kaiser, Beech Grove, John Trout, Concord, Dr. Matthew Prusiecki, Decatur, Dr. Youssef Yomtoob, East Chicago, Dr. Robert Haworth, Elkhart, Dr. David B. Smith, Evansville-Vanderburgh, Dr. Russell Hodges, Fayette, Dr. Wendy Robinson, Fort Wayne, Dr. Flora Reichanadter, Franklin Township, Dr. Cheryl Pruitt, Gary, Dr. Diane Woodworth, Goshen, Dr. Pete Morikis, Griffith, Dr. Walter (Jerry) Watkins, Hammond, Dr. Lewis Ferebee, Indianapolis, Dr. Jeff Hauswald, Kokomo, Les Huddle, Lafayette, Dr. Sharon Johnson Shirley, Lake Ridge, Dr. Thomas Cripliver, Lake Station, Dr. Shawn Smith, Lawrence Township, Michele Starkey, Logansport, Brad Lindsay, Marion, Dr. Jeffrey Studebaker, Merrillville, Dr. Barbara Eason-Watkins, Michigan City, Dr. A. Dean Speicher, Mishawaka, Dr. Judith Demuth, Monroe County, Dr. Steven Baule, Muncie, Dr. Thomas Little, Perry Township, Dr. Nate Jones, Pike, Todd Terrill, Richmond, Dr. Kenneth Spells, South Bend, Ken Hull, Speedway, Daniel Tanoos, Vigo, Dr. Dena Cushenberry, Warren Township, Dr. Nikki Woodson, Washington Township, Dr. Jeff Butts, Wayne Township, Cindy Scroggins, Whiting

How to measure school quality beyond test scores? State officials count the ways

2016-07-06T10:07:26+00:00

As Indiana — and the rest of the country — moves away from measuring schools based solely on student test scores, there are a lot of options on the table.

Thirty-four options, to be exact.

That’s how many ideas Indiana officials came up with when they surveyed other states to find out how they’re planning to go beyond test scores to assess schools, which the new federal education law requires.

The list ranges from including attendance to class size to student surveys. Some of the ideas could go into practice fairly quickly, while others would require new data to be collected. Some ideas are already in play in other states, but others might not meet federal rules.

Ultimately, the state will have to choose one to use in its new A-F letter grade system, but for now, all are under consideration, state education officials say.

“Nothing is really off the table,” said state Superintendent Glenda Ritz on Tuesday. “We just have to figure out if [the measure] can comply with regulations … and what it is we want to incentivize with our schools to actually improve achievement.”

The list is extensive, and includes factors such as student attendance, chronic absenteeism, suspension and expulsion rates, teacher retention, access to technology, school climate, dropout rate, class size, and school safety, to name a few. The Indiana Department of Education currently collects data on 22 of the measures.

Indiana already has the high school part of the equation down — measuring how many kids take and pass Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate exams and earn dual credit for college or industry credentials. A box still left to check is how to include a similarly non-test score based factor for elementary and middle schools.

State education officials already know that some “student success” measures on the list presented Tuesday to the Indiana State Board of Education will almost immediately be ruled out because they likely won’t pass muster with the federal government — either because they won’t differ significantly among schools or because there isn’t yet a statistically sound way to measure them.

Surveys on school climate are one option already being used in an effort from the city, Indianapolis Public Schools, and The Mind Trust, but some board members expressed concerns about relying on self-reported information. Other tools would either need to be created from scratch or found in existing research.

At a seminar earlier this month on the new federal education law, groups of educators and administrators gathered to rank what non-test score measures they’d like to see most. Topping the list was a desire for each district or school to establish its own measure that best reflects its needs — but that almost certainly isn’t possible because federal requirements say the chosen measure must apply to all schools in the state.

“I’m all for local decisions,” said board member and Warren Township Assistant Superintendent Lee Ann Kwiatkowski. “But then I’m wondering how we would meet that [federal] requirement.”

Other measures ranked highly were curriculum offerings, climate surveys, and whether a district meets its school improvement plan goals. Board member Steve Yager, a former superintendent from Fort Wayne, laid out a number of things the board should keep in mind as conversations continue.

“The practitioner side of me says be cautious,” Yager said. “Whatever we decide … can it be easily measured? Can it be easily reported and understood? Does research support the effort? Can we afford the effort? And can trends be tied to student success? That’s probably the most important thing.”

Ritz said next steps for the process include further vetting of possible success measures and gathering research on which are already highly correlated with student achievement. Whichever factor is chosen will ultimately count less in letter grade calculations than test-score based measures, however.

Ritz also announced that she has consulted with Senate President David Long, House Speaker Brian Bosma, and Gov. Mike Pence about reconvening the state’s accountability panel, which first met years ago to create the current A-F model. She wants the panel to dive deeper into what changes will need to be made under the new federal education law and report back to the board with a set of recommendations.

“We’ll come back with some research and information,” Ritz said. “We just have to hone in on where we think we want to go. We will be wrestling with this for a little while.”

See the full list of student success measures below.

Changes to A-F grading system move forward despite equity concerns

2016-04-15T18:38:35+00:00

Three key proposals dealing with school A-F accountability grades, new science standards, and the future of state tests got speedy approval from the Indiana State Board of Education today.

The board unanimously approved a proposal to determine how student test score improvement will factor into school A-F grades. It also signed off on new science standards that prioritize research skills over rote memorization and appointed its representative to the state’s future testing committee.

But the votes, which followed months of discussions on each issue, came with some controversy, particularly around the new A-F school grading system, which will be used for the first time this year.

The new A-F grade model will place more importance on how students improve on ISTEP from year to year, rather than just how many are able to pass. Now, test scores and student test score growth will be counted equally in all calculations, and other factors, such as graduation rates for high schools, will be filtered into the grade.

“We’ve moved from what we really considered was a flawed system to a new system that’s going to measure individual student growth,” said state Superintendent Glenda Ritz.

But some educators still aren’t comfortable with the growth proposal, in which the state will use a chart, called a “growth table,” to determine how many “growth points” a student earns based on changes in ISTEP scores. Points are awarded based on an evaluation of whether a student’s score improved, fell or did not change from the previous year.

Under the proposed table adopted unanimously by board members last month, students who make one year of growth and pass the test receive 100 “growth points,” while students who make one year of growth but don’t pass receive 75 points.

The Indiana Urban Schools Association, which includes the backing of all 11 public school districts in Marion County, said the proposal is discriminatory and violates state law because it uses percentiles to establish a baseline for determining how much students improve from one year to the next. Indiana law says “peer-to-peer” comparisons are not allowed when grading schools.

“We believe this model affects our ability to provide a quality education to all students and could result in having a disparate impact on students based on their race, socio-economic status and/or disability,” the association wrote in a letter to the state board.

Cynthia Roach, the testing and accountability director for the state board, said the growth proposal was properly vetted by legal staff and the attorney general. She also said that she doesn’t see how the proposal disproportionately targets certain groups of students because a test calculation of growth grades showed all subgroups of students — black, white, special needs, those with paid and free meals — earned As and Bs. For the “performance grade” based on a snapshot of ISTEP scores, wealthy and white students got Cs, and students who are poor, black or have special needs got Fs.

“We know there is a disparity in our state,” Roach said. “But what you should see is much lower differences in growth than what you see in performance. The growth piece is moving toward closing those gaps.”

Board member Cari Whicker said that although the new way of measuring growth seems complicated, it’s a more accurate representation of how students show improvement, and it gives them plenty of wiggle room even if scores fluctuate by a few points each year.

“Simplicity is not the goal,” Whicker said. “The goal is to be more fair.”

The board also unanimously approved new state science standards, which stress investigative and research skills that kids need to learn at every grade level as they explore physical science, earth and space science, life science and engineering.

This shift to emphasizing research skills in science class rather than specific knowledge is common in recent updates to academic standards. Just as with Indiana’s new college- and career-ready standards in math and English, and academic standards across the country, the new science standards are expected to be more rigorous and focus less on memorization.

For the state’s new testing development committee, board member Byron Ernest, the current head of Hoosier Academies and former principal at Manual High School, was nominated to represent the state board. Legislation approved this year sets a hard deadline for ISTEP, which will be given for the last time in 2017. Now, the state has until May 1 to finalize the committee, made up of educators, legislators and policymakers appointed by Gov. Mike Pence, Ritz and Republican legislative leaders.

The group will explore options for Indiana’s next state test and accountability system.

Should Indiana schools get an A-F bonus for kids who lose ground on ISTEP?

2016-03-14T22:43:57+00:00

Indiana education officials on Wednesday will make key decisions about how schools should be measured on the newest element of the state’s A-F grading system.

As the state shifts to a grading system that now factors whether students improve or lose ground on the ISTEP test from one year to the next, the Indiana State Board of Education will convene to discuss the details.

Specifically, the board is considering questions such as how to handle scenarios where students pass the test but get a lower score than the prior year. Also at issue are students who got the same score as the previous year but still failed to pass.

While schools have historically gotten letter grades based mostly on how many of its students passed the state’s standardized ISTEP exam, the new system — used for the first time this year — will weigh ISTEP passing rates equally with test score improvement and add in extra factors, such as graduation rates, for high schools.

The two proposals before the board this week are two different ways that the state can assign “growth points” based on whether students showed improvement from one year to the next.

Last year state board members raised concerns that a draft version of the growth point system would let students who passed but lost ground from the previous year still earn points, while students who went from failing to above-average couldn’t earn the maximum number of points.

Chalkbeat took a look at how the growth point system could work earlier this year:

Once results from the 2016 ISTEP are calculated, the state will use a chart, called a “growth table,” to determine how many “growth points” a student has earned. Points are awarded based on a student’s score from the previous year and whether their new scores improved, stayed the same or declined.

The two new tables have corrected the latter issue — students who go from from the very lowest percentile of scores to the very highest are rewarded for the big jump with the most number of points possible, 175. 100 points is the baseline awarded to schools that improve student scores a full grade level from one year to the next, meaning a student who passed last year passes the next year, too.

But both proposals currently give 50 points to kids who passed but got lower scores than the year before.

State board spokesman Marc Lotter said that’s a way the board could potentially recognize schools that have students who are in the right range but still need to get better. Zero points would be the “worst of the worst” situations, Lotter said, where students that failed one year got even lower scores than the year before.

“50 points is an F on a 100-point scale,” Lotter said. “The zero-point category is reserved for a child not passing and they didn’t grow a year, they got worse off. As educators we cannot have that, it’s not OK.”

The difference between the two proposals is fairly minor. In one instance, all students that scored essentially the same from one year to the next would earn 100 points, whether they passed the test or not.

In the other, students that scored the same but passed would earn 100 points, and those that scored the same but failed would get 75 points.

“You as a teacher, you as a school moved that child along one year, but you aren’t helping them close the gap to achieve proficiency, so under option 2, if the board chooses that, it’s saying we’re going to give you a ‘C,’” Lotter said.

One potential upside of the new proposals versus an older draft version is the distribution of grades they could produce.

Running examples calculations based on 2015 ISTEP scores and the new growth measure, the two new tables would give A-grades to 23 percent and 22 percent of schools and F-grades to 6 and 7 percent of schools. The majority of schools in both proposals would get Bs and Cs. Using the draft version of the table, just 9 percent of schools would’ve gotten A-grades and 14 percent would’ve gotten Fs.

But that’s a pretty big change from the state’s old A-F calculation, used for the last time in 2015. Under that system, where ISTEP passing rates are the largest data point and growth is not factored in, state officials estimate 3 percent of schools would’ve received As in 2015 and 32 percent would’ve received Fs.

For now, calculations using growth only apply for schools with grades 3-8. High schools won’t be able to include growth data until 2017 because the 10th-grade ISTEP will be given for the first time this year.

The board is expected to vote Wednesday to approve one of the proposals, which will then be put up for the public to weigh in. A final table will be voted on at the April meeting. The percentile “target ranges” on the tables are still expected to change as the state builds up it’s test data, Lotter said, so what’s more important is a decision on the broader categories and point values.

“If I was an educator, I wouldn’t get too overly focused on the target ranges yet,” Lotter said.

The board will also hear updates on the state’s high school diploma overhaul and a study conducted to determine the validity of last year’s ISTEP test.

Technology concerns surface as Indiana approaches next ISTEP exam

2016-02-03T19:36:58+00:00

Indiana students haven’t even begun answering a single question on the next round of the standardized ISTEP exam, and already policymakers are asking whether the technology used to administer the test are up to the challenge.

This year’s exam, created for the first time by the British testing company Pearson, will be largely administered on computers instead of on paper. That has educators — stung by a string of recent testing problems — on edge about possible flaws in the technology.

The Indiana State Board of Education devoted much of its February meeting today grilling Rich Young, the vice president of state services for Pearson, about the merits of online tests vs. those done on paper. Indiana signed a two-year contract with Pearson last year to create the state’s ISTEP test after years of computer glitches and scoring problems plagued previous agreements with testing company CTB, both in Indiana and across the country.

Vince Bertram, a state board member and CEO of project-based learning nonprofit Project Lead the Way, seemed ready to throw in the towel on online tests, saying technology isn’t useful when it doesn’t work.

“I believe in technology, but I don’t believe in having a technology system that doesn’t work,” Bertram said. “Technology is becoming the barrier to the credibility of the system.”

But Indiana Deputy Superintendent Danielle Shockey said that recent “stress tests” of Pearson’s testing software across the state went well, despite problems earlier in January.

“Pearson says there were no widespread issues with the (January 29) test,” Shockey said. “In fact, over the course of Friday’s test, they recorded more than 180,000 logins and a peak of 50,000 concurrent users — more than double the volume of the first readiness day.”

Board members still worried that just because problems weren’t widespread didn’t mean they weren’t present for some districts. Lee Ann Kwiatkowski, a board member and assistant superintendent in Warren Township, said her district was one where kids taking the computer practice tests were repeatedly interrupted.

“Even if it only takes one second to resume a student (test) … it puts stress on the student, on the teacher, on the principal,” Kwiatkowski said. “So it may be an easy fix to resume them, but it still can be problematic.”

But it might not make sense for the state to abandon online testing altogether, largely because of two criticisms educators and policymakers already have with state testing: cost and time.

Young said paper tests cost about $6-$8 more than online tests per student, per test. Although Indiana schools can request paper tests, the state has so far encouraged as many tests to be taken online as possible. Since about 500,000 students took ISTEP last year, that could mean at least an extra $3 million to $4 million if the whole state switched to paper tests.

Plus, Young said, it takes more time to collect, organize and grade paper tests. He estimated it might be a month longer for paper test results to be delivered than for online tests.

“It is more expensive, ultimately, to have lots of manual effort that goes into delivering an assessment like that,” Young said. “It takes time to ship things, to scan them, to score them.”

As schools approach the first ISTEP testing date later this month, Young said Pearson would be available to help them work through any computer issues. For example, he said, representatives were visiting Warren today to address the problems schools saw last week.

State Superintendent Glenda Ritz said Indiana is still in the process of pursuing a lawsuit against CTB for 2015’s scoring delays. Schools typically get scores back during the summer, but last year scores weren’t finalized and released until December.

“Our legal team is still working on that with the Attorney General’s office,” Ritz said.

An attorney was assigned to the case and is investigating whether the contract with CTB included provisions about test score delays, an education department official added.

CTB encountered multiple problems with ISTEP in recent years, most alarmingly in 2013 when about 78,000 Indiana students taking the test on computers were interrupted over the course of several days. It was the third consecutive year that the online ISTEP had such troubles. The state sought damages and won $13 million from the company for the 2013 issues.

Earlier this year, the Indianapolis Star reported that possible scoring problems from CTB could have led to thousands of misscored student tests.

The board today also approved A-F accountability grades for school districts, which were largely unchanged from 2014, and plans to schedule public hearings for schools in state takeover and “quality reviews” for those that have earned four years of F-grades.

Ritz said the state is still working to schedule a second February meeting to discuss the board’s independent review of the 2015 ISTEP. She said the board also plans to discuss how the state’s new A-F grading system would measure student improvement on exams from one year to the next.

Every Marion County school district except one will get a break from the state

2016-02-02T14:37:25+00:00

Almost every Marion County public school district would’ve seen its A-F grade drop in 2015 thanks to falling ISTEP scores before lawmakers stepped in last month to keep grades from going down.

The Indiana State Board of Education is expected to formally approve grades for school districts Wednesday, most of which will remain the same as last year. The results for districts are similar to what Indiana schools serving grades 3-8 saw when school A-F grades were released last month: most stayed the same only because a new state law was just approved to protect them.

The Indiana State Board of Education is expected to approve approve the grades for districts Wednesday. Gov. Mike Pence signed Senate Bill 200, which allows schools and districts to keep their 2014 grades unless the 2015 grades were higher, late last month after it was rushed through the the House and Senate over just a few weeks. Usually bills take a couple of months to pass both houses.

Lower grades across the board were the result of both more rigorous academic standards the state adopted last year and the first administration of a new, more difficult state ISTEP test. Statewide the 53.5 percent of students who passed ISTEP was down 22 percentage points in 2015 over the prior year.

Speedway was the only Marion County school district that would have earned an A-grade in 2015. With the “held harmless” grades from 2014, Franklin, Perry and Lawrence townships will now be rated A, rather than C. Indianapolis Public Schools will go on record with a D-grade for 2015, even though its ISTEP scores would have otherwise resulted in an F.

Besides district grades, the state board will address the performance of state takeover schools. It put off a couple of other decisions that were originally on its agenda.

Manual High School, Howe High School and Donnan Middle School, all former IPS schools, are all in their fourth years of state takeover. The schools have been run by Florida-based Charter Schools USA since 2012, when long streaks of low test scores led the state to take control.

The state board can order changes for, or take over, schools after six straight F-grades. After a change in state law last year, schools that earn their first F-grades in 2016 can face state takeover in just four years.

After five years of takeover, the board is required to make a decision. Some of those options are: It can return the school to be managed by its former school district; it can require the school apply for a charter; or it can allow the school to establish a partnership with another organization, such as its home district or a charter school. IPS already has partnerships along these lines with its Innovation Network Schools and schools in “transformation zones” that are run by the district, but set apart from schools that aren’t struggling.

Before the board can take action, it must hold public hearings. On Wednesday the board will vote on when to schedule those hearings and how they will be run.

Schools that have received four consecutive F-grades must be reviewed by a team made up of representatives from the community, other schools, school boards or outside experts. In Marion County, three IPS schools — the middle school grades at Northwest High School (which technically qualify as a separate school), School 42, and School 44 will get reviews. The state board is expected to vote on how the reviews will take place and their timelines.

Board members will also hear an update on new requirements under the federal Every Student Succeeds Act, which the U.S. Congress approved to replace the No Child Left Behind law last year.

Because of scheduling conflicts, the board will not discuss the latest study of the validity of the 2015 ISTEP test, which was plagued by design problems and scoring errors. Key lawmakers have called for a rescore last year’s test. Although details aren’t yet available, the state board’s testing director Cynthia Roach said at last month’s meeting that study shows the scores hold up. There wasn’t evidence to suggest they were substantially inaccurate, she said.

State Board spokesman Marc Lotter said the validity study, along with updates on the state’s new A-F school grade model, will be postponed until a special February meeting, which has not yet been scheduled.

Only a small share of Indiana schools earned higher A-F grades in 2015 (updated)

2016-01-26T16:36:14+00:00

Nearly all schools in Indiana that took the state ISTEP test — about 93 percent — received the exact same grade on the state’s accountability report card last year as they did the year before.

But that doesn’t mean every school necessarily qualified for the same grade.

On the contrary, when the Indiana State Board of Education released grades for the 2014-15 school year this morning, it seemed clear that many schools benefitted from a “hold harmless” bill that Gov. Mike Pence signed into law Thursday. That law, prompted by tougher standards that triggered a dramatic drop in 2015 ISTEP test scores, barred the board from giving schools grades for 2015 that were lower than the ones they received the year before.

With that law in place, the grades released by the board today reflected new grades for a fraction of Indiana schools that took last year’s test. Since most schools’ test scores dropped between 2014 and 2015, just 120 of more than 2,000 schools that took ISTEP saw their marks rise, about 5.5 percent. That percentage doesn’t include new schools that got a first-time grade last year or those that switched from “no grade” to a letter grade in 2015.

According to updated data from the Indiana Department of Education, 36.7 percent of school grades stayed the same, and 56.6 percent of schools that took ISTEP were actually “held harmless” at their 2014 grade levels, meaning that otherwise, their grades would’ve gone down.

“After more than 18 months spent advocating to hold our schools and teachers harmless for the transition to more rigorous college and career ready standards and the results of a more rigorous ISTEP assessment, I am pleased to release 2015 school accountability grades that do not penalize schools and communities for this transition,” said state Superintendent Glenda Ritz.

Find your school’s 2015 A-F letter grade with our interactive database.

In a typical year, Indiana schools see many grade changes from one year to the next. In 2014, just 52.4 percent of schools got the same grade as the year before while about 30 percent of schools improved from 2013 to 2014.

The 2015 grades approved by the board this morning showed none of that volatility. In Marion County, 11 of 186 schools, or 5.9 percent, got a higher grade than they did in 2014. That includes four schools in IPS, three schools in Decatur Township, one school each in Pike, Warren and Wayne townships. Every other school received the same grade.

Of the IPS schools that improved, three moved up from F-grades in 2014 — School 55 and School 107 received Ds, and School 93 received a C. Key Learning Community High School got a B, up from a C in 2014.

Throughout Indiana, more than half of all schools received A-grades, 19.4 percent got Bs, 15.2 percent got Cs, 6.1 percent got Ds and 2.6 percent got Fs.

In Marion County, 38.2 percent of schools got As, 19.9 percent got Bs, 18.3 percent got Cs, 16.1 percent got Ds and 6.5 percent got Fs.

For schools that didn’t receive a grade in 2014 — usually for schools that recently opened or don’t have students in tested grades — the board decided today that if 2015 grade calculations would have given them an A, B or C, the schools could keep that grade. If the calculation resulted in a D or F, the school would have “no grade” for 2015 as well. Board member Gordon Hendry was the lone board member who voted against that strategy.

“It’s just my view that we should be one or the other and not ‘split the baby,’” Hendry said.

Ritz said that she was pleased lawmakers enacted the “hold harmless” legislation, but the root of the problem is ISTEP. She’s spoken in recent weeks about her plan to re-work the state’s testing system.

“While I appreciate the work of the legislature to hold schools harmless for the results of last year’s ISTEP assessment, Indiana should move away from labeling Hoosier schools, and in turn Hoosier students, based on the results of a lengthy, pass/fail, high-stakes assessment,” Ritz said in a statement.

Last year’s exam was plagued by scoring problems, design issues and computer glitches, all which have lawmakers looking for a way out once the state finishes its next two-year contract with British-based test company Pearson in 2017. California test writer CTB administered last year’s test.

Going forward, the state will switch to a new A-F model for this year’s grades that focuses on student test score growth.

Find your school’s 2015 A-F letter grade

2016-01-26T15:44:29+00:00

The Indiana State Board of Education finalized school letter grades for the 2014-15 school year today, and only 5.6 percent of the state’s schools saw their grades improve from 2014, compared with about 30 percent that improved from 2013 to 2014.

Those results come after Gov. Mike Pence last week signed Senate Bill 200 into law. The measure barred the Board from giving schools grades for 2015 that were lower than the grades they received in 2014.

Use our database below to find your school’s grade and sort by county, district and school.

State board aims to reduce the fear of state takeover for 3 schools

2016-01-22T19:51:36+00:00

Three Indiana schools that were in danger of being taken over by the state can breathe a little easier.

The schools — West Side Leadership Academy in Gary and Caze Elementary and Washington Middle Schools in Evansville — have received F-grades from the state for five years in a row and face the possibility of getting a dreaded sixth F next week when the Indiana State Board of Education hands out school accountability grades at its January meeting.

Normally, schools that receive six Fs in a row face serious consequences which could include state takeover, under which the schools can be handed over to be run independently by management companies, usually charter school networks — a process that can result in teachers losing their jobs.

But board member Steve Yager earlier this week proposed a resolution that would cut those schools a break given the dramatic drop in standardized test scores that hit nearly every school in Indiana last year after the state imposed new, more difficult standards.

“The board will continue current intervention activities that are currently going on there and have the support of so many in the community and the local school districts,” said state board spokesman Marc Lotter.

Yager said the board plans to maintains existing partnerships at the schools. Lotter said many board members have noticed that the three schools have shown progress, which prompted Yager’s move.

“This resolution, if approved by the board, continues that partnership for another year while also asking districts to provide updates to the board on their plans to help students succeed at those schools,” Yager said.

Across the state, the student passing rate on the state’s 2015 ISTEP standardized exam fell by about 22 percentage points to 53.5 percent for both English and math.

The score drops meant that, if nothing changed, fewer schools were projected to earn A’s, and more are expected to earn D’s and F’s.

But the legislature has protected most Indiana schools from the consequences of bad grades with legislation — Senate Bill 200 — that Gov. Mike Pence signed into law yesterday. The law will shield schools from the pain of poor test scores by barring the board from giving schools lower grades for the 2014-15 school year than they received the year before.

But the law did not include any provisions to protect schools like West Side Leadership, Caze and Washington that received F grades in 2014. Those schools could receive another F, moving them further along in the state pipeline toward consequences.

Some lawmakers, such as Rep. Vernon Smith, D-Gary, saw that as unfair treatment for schools that were already struggling.

The bill’s author, Sen. Dennis Kruse, wasn’t open to amending the bill, but Yager’s resolution, which he plans to present on Tuesday and which is expected to receive support from the board, could be seen as an effort to extend the “hold harmless” provision to F-rated schools as well.

Rep. Bob Behning, the bill’s sponsor in the House, said Thursday during the House session that Yager’s resolution should address any worries lawmakers might still have about schools with more than one consecutive F-grade.

“There were a lot of questions about what was going to happen if any of those schools were to enter a sixth year,” state board spokesman Marc Lotter said. “I think this addresses that state board understands that there is great work going on, and they want to see that work continue.”

Going forward, consistently failing schools won’t have as much time to turn things around before facing state intervention. A law passed last year shortened the state’s accountability timeline so that schools that receive their first F for the 2015-16 school year could face consequences after four years instead of six. If schools already have consecutive F-grades going into 2016, they are still on the six-year track.

Also in 2016, the state will begin using a new A-F grading system based around whether students improve on ISTEP from year to year, not solely on an end-of-year test score snapshot.

It’s over: Pence signs bills pausing ISTEP consequences for one year

2016-01-21T20:53:16+00:00

Two of this year’s biggest education bills dealing with the fallout from last year’s ISTEP test were signed into law today by Gov. Mike Pence less than three weeks into the 2016 legislative session.

Almost two years of debates are over. There will be a “pause” in sanctions for teachers and schools with students that had poor ISTEP scores last year.

Both Senate Bill 200, authored by Sen. Dennis Kruse, R-Auburn, and House Bill 1003, authored by Rep. Bob Behning, R-Indianapolis, have a shared goal of relieving teachers and schools from the potentially harsh effects of scores that could have been widespread after the passing rate for both English and math for students statewide sank by about 22 percentage points to 53.5 percent.

Senate President David Long, R-Fort Wayne, said since he was first elected in 1996 he’s never seen two bills travel so quickly through the legislature. Long said the bills were the product of months of collaboration among members of the Indiana House and Senate, the Indiana State Board of Education and state Superintendent Glenda Ritz.

“We have all worked together for one purpose, and that’s to have a better outcome for our schools and teachers,” he said.

Senate Bill 200, which passed the House today 97-1, prevents schools from receiving A-F letter grades for 2015 that are lower than what they received in 2014. The grade pause only counts for 2015. Rep. John Bartlett, D-Indianapolis, was the lone legislator who voted no. Going forward, schools will be under a new accountability system that more actively factors in student improvement on tests from year to year.

Behning’s bill blocks the use of ISTEP scores as part of a teacher’s evaluation for 2015 unless it would improve a teacher’s rating. The bill also ensures teachers will receive bonuses or salary increases no matter what A-F letter grades their schools receive. It passed the Senate today 48-0.

Ritz said schools will soon receive guidance from the Indiana Department of Education about when they could expect to get the performance bonuses.

Pence said he was grateful to Ritz for bringing up the “hold harmless” issue last year.

“I also want to thank Superintendent Ritz, who first called this issue as a possibility to our attention in the middle of last year,” Pence said. “We appreciate her passion for our kids, we appreciate her dedication. We thank you … for your leadership on this issue”

In a statement, Ritz said the refusal of Republican lawmakers to acknowledge the problem until this year just led to more frustration.

“I have appreciated recent momentum behind this vital issue, but it is worth noting that this issue should have been dealt with a year ago,” Ritz said. “Had we done so, there is no doubt that much of the consternation and difficulty our schools experienced in the last year could have been avoided.”

Last year’s ISTEP test was riddled with scoring problems and technical glitches, and the resulting scores have been loudly bashed by educators and policymakers alike as unreliable. The problem goes, in part, all the way back to the state’s hasty reworking of its academic standards in 2014, which led to a need for a quick overhaul of the state ISTEP tests in English and math for students in grades 3-8 in 2015. Performance on the test was uniformly poor across the state. All but four of 1,500 public schools saw their scores go down.

That prompted Pence and fellow Republican leaders in the House and Senate to rush two bills to ease the pain schools that would come from the state’s accountability system, which leans heavily on ISTEP scores. Schools with persistently failing grades can face state takeover, and teachers of students who don’t show test score gains from the prior year can be blocked from pay raises.

Pence started out staunchly opposed to an accountability “pause” for teachers or schools but reversed course in an announcement last fall, calling instead for legislators to spare teachers from consequences for lower ISTEP scores.

In follow up statement earlier this month, Pence came out in support of a similar pause for school A-F grades. Ritz has long supported such a pause, and the passage of these bills marks a rare political victory for her administration.

“It has happened and I’m really excited about it,” Ritz said. “We just need to move forward.”

Indiana’s new A-F grade system: It’s not just about pass or fail anymore

2016-01-20T19:44:00+00:00

For the first time this year, Indiana schools will no longer be judged primarily on a single, end-of-year ISTEP snapshot of success or failure.

Going forward, the state’s A-F letter grade school rating system will place more importance on how students improve on ISTEP from year to year, rather than just how many are able to pass.

The change represents a major shift in the way schools are measured.

“We’re using a whole new system,” said state Superintendent Glenda Ritz.

With the state increasingly demanding that students meet higher standards to better prepare for college or careers by the end of high school, the new system will take a “totally different look” at how well students are advancing from one year to the next, Ritz said. “We’re … making sure that our kids are moving up to a more rigorous benchmark.”

Finalized last spring, the 2016 A-F letter grade system was designed to better factor in elements of school achievement that go beyond test scores. For years, schools have complained that A-F grades are too focused on standardized tests and don’t fairly represent the performance of their students and teachers. Now, test scores and student test score growth will be counted equally in all calculations, and other factors, such as graduation rates for high schools, will be filtered into the grade.

The U.S. Department of Education has pushed for these kinds of changes, and the new Every Student Succeeds Act, which goes into effect next year, encourages states to prioritize student growth over simply measuring how many students pass or fail. If schools can’t show that certain kids are improving on tests each year — such as English-language learners and students with special needs — the best they can get is a B.

The new grading system goes into effect this year, meaning the grades schools receive for the 2015-16 school year will be based on the new model. The 2014-15 grades, which the state is still awaiting because of ISTEP scoring delays and pending legislation, will be the last round calculated using the old model.

When the new model is in place, experts say it will change the way parents and communities think about which schools are the most effective.

Cynthia Roach, testing director for the Indiana State Board of Education said parents should expect to see fewer As — but also fewer Fs.

The predictions shown to the state board in 2014 suggest that most schools will fall in the B, C and D range, she said.

“It’s logical that the majority of the schools are average,” Roach said.

New model sees broad support among policymakers

If most schools are classified as average going forward, that means many could see lower grades than they have in the past.

That’s bound to anger parents and educators at historically A-grade schools, but state education leaders welcome a change that they say will provide a more accurate picture of how kids and schools are really doing on state exams.

Both Ritz and Gov. Mike Pence supported the change to the growth-based system. It was one of the few examples of cooperation between the two, who have clashed over the direction of education policy in Indiana since both were elected in 2012.

The new system was crafted by a panel that was charged by the legislature with devising a way to measure how well students improve from one year to the next. It’s a fairer approach, some say, for schools where many kids are still struggling to pass state tests.

Now, in addition to ISTEP scores, known as “performance scores,” students will also get a “growth score.”

The Education Department will calculate letter grades using three main factors. One is already familiar — schools’ ISTEP passing rates. The second will be the growth factor, which measures how much a students improved or declined from one year to the next.

The third factor is a new measure only for high schools that combines graduation rate, the number of students earning college credits and workplace credentials while still in high school and the number of students passing Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate exams.

Exam passing rates and graduation rates were used to grade schools under the old model, but now those rates will play a larger role in deciding most high schools’ grades at 60 percent for schools that qualify to use the factor. Schools with higher percentages of kids graduating, passing exams and earning certifications or credits would likely get higher scores.

In cases where the standard grading formula doesn’t apply to a specific school, the new grading system is designed to be adapted accordingly. For example, if a new high school has not yet graduated any seniors, test scores would play a larger role in that school’s grade.

Schools, however, will not have be able to influence ahead of time how their grades are determined.

“You get what you qualify for,” Roach said.

For now, elementary school grades will be largely based on test scores in some way, but new requirements of the federal Every Student Succeeds Act, which replaces the No Child Left Behind Act in 2017, would require states to eventually use other factors, such as reading scores, attendance or school climate, for all grade levels.

Shifting to focus on ‘growth’

The big change for Indiana schools for now will be the growth factor.

Once results from the 2016 ISTEP are calculated, the state will use a chart, called a “growth table,” to determine how many “growth points” a student has earned. Points are awarded based on a student’s score from the previous year and whether their new scores improved, stayed the same or declined.

The exact method for how growth points will be determined is still in the works.

A draft proposal that was shared with the state board of education last year raised concerns among some educators. They were unhappy that the current plan would let students whose scores got worse still earn growth points, but those who went from failing to an above-average score couldn’t earn the maximum number of points.

State officials said the final numbers on the growth table are likely to change as the board gets a chance to weigh in, state staff present their final recommendations and more public comment is received.

The state board will review different versions of growth tables in February and then ask the public for comment.

Once points from test scores, growth and high school factors like graduation rate are combined and averaged over the number of students in a school, the results are weighted based on the school’s specific formula. Then the school’s final point total is determined.

Grades are assigned using a 100-point scale, similar to how a teacher might grade a test. Ninety to 100 points are an A, 80 to 89.9 points a B, and so on. The old model had just a four-point range, which made it hard to show nuance in the scores.

Transitioning from old to new

The Indiana State Board of Education and Ritz’s department both agree on the merits of the new model — a rare moment of unity in a season of frequent disagreements over Indiana’s testing and accountability.

A shared goal was to add nuance to a system that has often been decried as punitive and overly reliant on test scores.

State board spokesman Marc Lotter said the new growth table, for example, could give teachers a better idea of how much students would need to improve each year to be recognized as high achievers.

“On the surface you could say that’s more confusing, but I would tell you on the back side, that’s … much more fair, and it reflects what teachers and administrators definitely wanted,” Lotter said.

This new model, too, gives schools credit not just for students whose scores get better each year, but also for students who continue to pass the exam, considered one year of “expected growth.” The old A-F model couldn’t measure that, Roach said.

“If you have kids who are passing and you are chugging them along, we’re going to give you points,” Roach said.

Roach said she couldn’t release any examples of how schools’ grades might fare under the new grading system, but she said schools and districts will be able to see where they stand on the new model before the state board is expected to vote on the final table in March.

Educators on the original A-F panel were a big part of the push toward equally weighing growth and ISTEP passing rates and factoring in new high school components, said Ritz’s spokeswoman Samantha Hart.

“The desire there was to make something that was more reflective of the teaching that’s going on in our schools,” Hart said. “And while it may have more measures or layers … it’s more fair and transparent for an educator or a parent to understand how their school is actually doing.”

ISTEP rescore plans reduced after lawmakers consider high costs, expert advice

2016-01-19T19:22:33+00:00

Republican lawmakers have scaled back their ambitious plans to rescore the 2015 ISTEP test.

Although legislation introduced earlier this month originally suggested a full rescore of the controversial exam — meaning hundreds of thousands of tests would be re-opened and millions of student answers would be re-examined — the bill’s author now says that proposal would be too expensive, coming in at roughly $8 million to $10 million.

The author, Rep. Bob Behning, R-Indianapolis, announced during a House Education Committee meeting today that his bill — House Bill 1395 — now calls for just a partial rescore of a smaller sample of exams.
The smaller effort could boost public trust in the exam without breaking the budget, he said.

“(A rescore would) at least try to restore confidence in the assessment as we move forward,” Behning said.

The bill comes in response to heavy criticism of last year’s exam, which was plagued with scoring, test design and technical problems that accompanied new, more challenging standards and a brand-new test.

The tougher standards led to a major drop in scores. The statewide rate of students passing both the math and reading sections of the exam dropped by 22 percentage points to 53.5 percent. All but four of state’s 1,500 public schools saw their scores go down.

Behning’s bill would require the Indiana Department of Education to hire an outside company to rescore short-answer questions on the 2015 ISTEP. If the scores change, the bill would allow the state to use the new results as the baseline for calculating whether a school’s test scores improve or decline in future years. Improvement is a major factor in the state’s new A-F school grading system.

Even as his bill makes its way through the legislature, Behning says he’s still working on some of the details, seeking guidance from test experts and state officials that could lead to amendments.

Ed Roeber, a test expert from Michigan who has consulted on ISTEP for the Indiana State Board of Education, has told the legislature that a sample of 5,000 tests could be enough to verify the exam’s validity as long as the sample includes tests from urban, rural and suburban schools in all parts of the state.

“While this plan involves more steps than simply rescoring all responses to every prompt, it has the potential to answer the questions about the accuracy of hand-scoring without attendant expense of scoring all responses,” Roeber wrote in a letter to the Indiana General Assembly. “Thus, I believe you will be able to achieve your objective of checking on the accuracy of the scoring at lower cost.”

Indiana Deputy Superintendent Danielle Shockey told the committee today that a rescore isn’t necessary because the Department of Education has already conducted numerous reviews of exam, many of which were led by the very test experts Behning is consulting, including Roeber. So far, Shockey said, the state has not found any evidence of test flaws that would have affected student scores.

“The department would like to wait for data to support the need for a costly, very time-consuming rescore,” Shockey said.

It’s also not clear who would pay for the rescore. Behning, whose bill does not specify which state agency would be on the hook for the expense, raised the possibility that the company that made the test, CTB, could be asked to contribute.

“Obviously someone is going to have to pay for it,” Behning said. “We might have to … provide some additional flexibility so money could be moved from the general fund.”

Daniel Altman, a spokesman for Indiana state Superintendent Glenda Ritz, said the Department of Education has talked with the state Attorney General’s office about filing suit against CTB to recover damages for delays in scoring.

If Behning’s bill becomes law, the rescore would not be the first review of the troubled 2015 test. A panel of testing experts already conducted one review after concerns were raised in October over differences in difficulty between the paper version of the exam and the online version.

In December, the Indianapolis Star reported another scoring glitch that could have led to thousands of mis-scored tests. The state then convened a second panel to examine the data and found that the glitch did not affect student scores.

The state also allows parents to ask for a rescore of their child’s test each year. In 2015, more than 61,000 tests were rescored, Shockey said, about three times more than are usually requested. In about 11 percent of rescored exams, scores were changed by a point or more but only a fraction of rescores — 1.76 percent — led to a student moving to a different level, such as from “fail” to “pass.”

Rescores can only lead to a student’s score going up, not down, said Michele Walker, the education department’s test director.

Behning’s bill, which is up for a committee vote later this week, would also create a panel to review Indiana’s current A-F accountability system. The system might need to be adjusted to comply with the new federal Every Student Succeeds Act, which will replace the No Child Left Behind Act in the 2017-18 school year. The new law will still require Indiana to give most students a pass-fail test every year but will allow for some more flexibility.

The 20-person testing and accountability panel would include policymakers, educators and lawmakers appointed by Republican legislative leaders, Gov. Mike Pence and Ritz. Behning said he was open to adding Ritz, a Democrat, as a co-leader of the group.

“I think it’s appropriate that we spend time as policymakers talking to the brightest and best educators … and looking at what our next options are in terms of performance, standards and accountability metrics,” Behning said.

Shockey said the committee could help Indiana move on from the testing problems it’s seen over the past year. It would align with Ritz’s plan to review the state’s testing program.

Ritz has said that the state should consider a testing program that doesn’t rely so heavily on a single, end-of-year exam. She suggested a series of tests that would focus more on how students improve throughout the year.

“Indiana could be a leader in creating a more streamlined, student-centered assessment system,” Shockey said.

Bill doesn’t shield all schools equally from A-F grade consequences

2016-01-14T20:34:46+00:00

A bill speeding through the legislature that would give schools relief from last year’s drop in ISTEP scores won’t offer much protection for the state’s most struggling schools.

As state education officials prepare to release A-F school letter grades for the 2014-15 school year, Senate Bill 200 would shield most schools from serious consequences by barring officials from assigning grades that are lower than the previous year.

That means schools that received B’s in 2014 won’t get C’s or D’s or F’s in 2015 even if their ISTEP scores dropped dramatically.

But schools that were already struggling with F-grades could receive another F, putting them in danger of state penalties.

State law currently mandates that schools that receive six F-grades in a row become eligible for sanctions, including state takeover. That usually means schools are turned over to a private management company and converted into charter schools, and teachers could be fired.

At today’s House Education Committee meeting, the Senate Bill 200 passed 13-0, but lawmakers raised questions about the fairness of maintaining tough consequences for schools “on the cusp” of state takeover.

Rep. Vernon Smith, D-Gary, called for language that would protect the F-schools as well as higher performing ones.

“If you want to talk about fairness … we ought to apply that,” Smith said. “I think it’s doable, and it’s fair.”

Because of a variety of problems scoring last year’s ISTEP test, the state has delayed the release of the 2015 grades. The score drops also mean fewer schools are projected to earn A’s, and more are expected to earn D’s and F’s.

When the grades are published, three schools could receive their sixth F. That includes two in Evansville and one in Gary, said Samantha Hart, a spokeswoman for state Superintendent Glenda Ritz.

Sen. Dennis Kruse, R-Auburn, who authored the bill, and committee Chairman Rep. Bob Behning, R-Indianapolis, said they were sympathetic to the F-schools but aren’t willing to let them off the hook after so many years of failing scores.

“I totally understand,” Kruse told Smith. “But I’m trying to keep this bill as simple as possible and easy to understand.”

The three schools have actually had more time to turn their scores around than schools will be given beginning with 2016 grades. Lawmakers last year shortened the states’s accountability timeline so that schools that receive their first F for the 2015-16 school year could face consequences after four years instead of six. If schools already have consecutive F-grades going into 2016, they are still on the six-year track.

John O’Neal, representing the Indiana State Teachers Association, said the law shouldn’t get to pick and choose which schools win and which schools lose.

“If we are truly going to hold schools harmless, It needs to apply the same in every case,” O’Neal said.

But Rep. Jim Lucas, R-Seymour, said this isn’t the state “picking on schools.”

“Nobody wants to see any harm done to anybody, but … we’re talking about schools that are going on their sixth year of F’s, of failing,” Lucas said. “I don’t want us to lose sight of that. We are trying to help schools. That is a long time for a school to be failing so many people.”

The committee voted down an amendment from Smith that would have removed 2015 F-grades from the accountability timeline. The vote was 9-4 along party lines.

The bill is expected to go before the full House and to be signed by the governor sometime next week.

Pence signs on to Ritz's approach to 'pause' A-F grades, ISTEP sanctions

2016-01-04T23:35:22+00:00

Gov. Mike Pence and state Superintendent Glenda Ritz finally agree on the best way to handle a “pause” of penalties schools would otherwise pay for poor test scores for 2014-15, and they appear poised to follow Ritz’s preferred approach.

Sen. Dennis Kruse, a Republican from Auburn who chairs the Senate Education Committee, today filed Senate Bill 200, which proposes schools may not receive a lower grade for 2015 than what they received in 2014.

That’s the very solution Ritz has promoted since mid-2014.

“The current version of Senate Bill 200 is common sense legislation that allows schools time to adjust to our new standards and prevents unnecessary economic harm to our schools and communities,” Ritz said in a statement. “This bill has my strong support.”

Pence, who opposed giving schools a one-year pass from low A-F grades and their accompanying sanctions before changing course in late October, signaled he also supports Kruse’s bill.

“(Gov. Pence) has studied the issue, listened to educators in the field and collaborated with lawmakers to arrive at what he believes is the fairest treatment of schools in the transition year,” Pence’s spokeswoman Kara Brooks said in a statement.

If the bill passes intact, it would be a rare political win for Ritz. Her seal of approval on education policy ideas, at times, has seemed to brand them as non-starters with Pence, his Indiana State Board of Education appointees and other Republican leaders.

The bill also quickly garnered support from House Speaker Brian Bosma, R-Indianapolis, and Senate President David Long, R-Fort Wayne.

In June of 2014, Ritz called for a pause in the A-F system in a letter to then-U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan. Pence followed a newspaper column in which he said such a move would never happen on his watch.

“Indiana will not go backwards when it comes to measuring performance in our schools on my watch,” he wrote. “We do not support a pause in accountability as it relates to delivering A to F grades to schools, determining intervention strategies in under-performing schools, or teacher evaluations that reflect classroom performance.”

State Democrats also support the method laid out in Kruse’s bill. In fact, Sen. Mark Stoops, D-Bloomington, drafted a similar bill that he asked the Indiana General Assembly to pass on Organization Day in November, the ceremonial start to the legislative session.

It didn’t happen then — such a move would have had few precedents — but it appears there is near unanimous support for the idea today.

The need for an A-F grade fix stems from several problems with the 2015 ISTEP test, including scoring problems and differences that were discovered between difficulty in online and paper versions that required scoring adjustments so all students had comparable results.

ISTEP scores are expected to be released to the public on Wednesday, which is far behind the usual schedule. They were released in early August in 2014.

State test scores are key factors in determining teacher pay decisions as well as school A-F grades. Because the state introduced new, more challenging standards in 2014, ISTEP passing rates are expected to drop 16 percentage points in English and 24 percentage points in math. That also means fewer schools are expected to get A’s, and more likely will receive D’s and F’s.

Schools that earn F-grades can have serious consequences ahead of them. For example, the state can take schools over, handing them off to be run by charter school networks or other outside groups, if they repeatedly get F’s for four consecutive years. Teachers who receive poor evaluations can be fired or declared ineligible for pay raises.

Rep. Bob Behning, R-Indianapolis, is also expected to introduce tomorrow a bill that would not allow ISTEP scores or A-F grades to factor into teacher evaluations, their pay raises or pay bonuses, for 2015.

A few other ideas for how to handle a big dip in ISTEP passing rates and A-F grades were proposed late last year, but the “hold harmless” approach seems to have the most support from the U.S. Department of Education. State education department officials have told Chalkbeat that they are confident the method in Kruse’s bill would be “consistent with the spirit of the flexibility (the U.S. Department of Education) has offered.”

The Senate Education Committee, chaired by Kruse, is expected to hear and vote on the bill at its first meeting Wednesday. A statement from Long and Bosma said both bills are expected to pass and reach the governor’s desk by mid-to-late January.

The basics of Tony Bennett: A reform star’s rise and fall

2015-12-01T05:00:00+00:00

This story is one in a series exploring the basics of key issues in education in Indiana. For a list of the issues and links to the other stories in the series, go here.

In 2011, Tony Bennett was such a national education star as Indiana’s state superintendent that he literally went to Washington, D.C., and walked away with the title Education Reform Idol.

Technically, he accepted the title on behalf of his state, in a quirky contest put on by the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, a Washington group that advocates for high academic standards and school choice. But Bennett was the star of the show, which was broadcast live online. He playfully mocked rival states Wisconsin, Illinois, Ohio, and Florida while vigorously trumpeting changes he helped lead in the Hoosier state.

At the time, Bennett’s national fans could not have imagined that little more than a year later, he would be voted out of office — or that his comeback job, as education commissioner in Florida, would end abruptly after seven months amid charges that he manipulated school grading rules and broke campaign ethics laws during his time in Indiana.

Bennett’s story as an education leader has been one of jarring reversals of fortune, from basketball coach to superintendent, from small-town Indiana to the state capitol, and — most recently — from national prominence to a battle to reclaim his reputation.

A push for change

Bennett spent most of his life in southern Indiana. He was born in Jeffersonville, raised in Clarksville, and went to Catholic schools. He got into coaching basketball and became a science teacher while earning bachelor’s and master’s degrees at Indiana University Southeast. He later earned a doctorate from Kentucky’s Spalding University.

He became assistant superintendent in New Albany in 2001 and superintendent in Greater Clark County Schools in 2007 before deciding to run for state superintendent in 2008. He was quickly embraced by Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels, who appeared in television ads with Bennett. During the campaign, Bennett pushed for free market reforms, such as school choice, reducing bureaucracy, and redirecting spending from administration toward classroom instruction. He won 52 percent of the vote over Democrat Richard Wood, who had been superintendent of Lafayette’s Tippecanoe schools.

Bennett quickly set about pushing for greater accountability. He added new factors to the state’s school grading system, including a “growth” measure of students gains on state test results and new data points measuring students’ “college and career readiness.” He warned the state’s lowest-scoring schools that he would invoke a new state law to intervene if they continued to fail for six straight years.

He pushed to use a new test, IREAD3, to assure third graders could read, and prevent those who couldn’t from moving on to fourth grade. By the end of 2010, Bennett also championed the state’s adoption of Common Core standards. Bennett worked with the National Governors Associations and a consortium of states to advocate nationally for the Common Core.

He established new academic goals for the state—90 percent passing the state ISTEP test, 25 percent of high school graduates earning college credit, and a 90 percent high school graduation rate. And to track Indiana’s progress, he placed an electric scoreboard outside his office. Indiana fell short of all three in his four years, but made gains toward each.

National acclaim

Bennett began making powerful friends around the country who were pushing similar reforms elsewhere, including former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and New York’s then school chancellor Joel Klein, and speaking engagements soon followed.

Bennett also increasingly did battle with teachers unions, most notably over the state’s Race to the Top grant application. The state passed on a chance for $250 million in federal aid when Bennett could not get the Indiana State Teachers Association to sign on to the application. Bennett ended the effort when the union’s then-president, Nate Schnellenberger, declined to attend a meeting that Bennett insisted be open to to the public to discuss Bennett’s plan for the grant and why the union was refusing to support it. Schnellenberger dismissed the meeting as a “media circus.”

In 2011, Bennett helped Daniels successfully advocate for a series of major education changes in the legislature, despite strong opposition from unions and Democrats.

One bill established a new private school voucher program, allowing low-income families to redirect tax dollars meant for their children’s public school education toward private-school tuition. The legislature also expanded the authority to “sponsor” charter schools to private universities in an effort to seed more charter schools. (Charter school sponsors open and then oversee the schools.)

Another bill limited teacher union bargaining to just pay and benefits, taking away the right to bargain over work conditions such as class size and after school meeting requirements. Finally, lawmakers approved a fourth major bill requiring an overhaul in Indiana’s teacher evaluation system, requiring annual evaluations, and including student test score growth as one of several factors.

In 2012, Bennett made good on his promise to enforce school accountability, urging the Indiana State Board of Education to take over five schools: four in Indianapolis and one in Gary. The schools had all been given six consecutive F grades by the state. Bennett selected three charter school organizations to run the schools independently, severing them from their school districts.

2012 Election

Bennett prepared to seek reelection with aggressive fundraising. By Election Day, he had raised $1.8 million, five times more than his Democratic opponent, Glenda Ritz. Ritz was an award-winning teacher working as a librarian in Indianapolis’s Washington Township and new to politics. She was also president of her local teachers union and active with the state teacher’s union, ISTA, which funded most of her campaign.

Despite large disparities in money and name recognition, Ritz mounted an aggressive word-of-mouth and social media campaign, relying heavily on teachers, especially those active in unions, to spread the word of her candidacy in their personal and social networks like Facebook and Twitter. Ritz argued Bennett’s approach was too dependent on standardized tests, tapping into a growing national backlash against too much testing. She also echoed another national argument that school choice programs like those Bennett championed merely turned schools over to private companies aimed at making profits.

Bennett ran a more traditional campaign, with TV commercials and campaign appearances around the state. He declined Ritz’s offer for a series of debates, agreeing instead to a pair of joint appearances.

The election produced a shocking result when Ritz defeated Bennett with 52 percent of the vote. A shaken Bennett thanked his supporters and took responsibility for the defeat, saying his rhetoric was too blunt at times.

But Bennett soon had another opportunity. He was invited to apply for the post of education commissioner of Florida, an equivalent post to state superintendent, but appointed rather than elected. After false starts with other candidates, Florida Gov. Rick Scott appointed Bennett.

Email controversy

Bennett’s Florida tenure came to an end almost as quickly as it began when, in July of 2013, Indiana journalists obtained emails written by Bennett and his staff through public records requests. The resulting news stories produced political fallout in both states. In his emails, Bennett raised questions about a state grade that was about to be assigned to a charter school run by a former contributor to his campaign, Christel DeHaan. DeHaan’s Christel House Academy charter school in Indianapolis had a long track record of A grades, but it was about to be assigned a C.

The emails showed that Bennett’s staff began exploring several routes to raising the school’s grade before settling on a rule change for schools with unusual grade level configurations. Christel House served grades K to 10. The new rule exempted the school from being judged on some high school measures, raising Christel House to an A. Twelve other schools statewide also received higher grades. Critics said the emails showed Bennett and his team so favored charter schools he was willing to rig the system to benefit them.

Days later, Bennett resigned in Florida, saying he didn’t want the Indiana controversy to impede school reform efforts in the Sunshine State. Later, consultants selected by Indiana’s Republican legislative leaders reviewed the emails and Bennett’s actions, calling the rule alterations by his office that changed A to F grades “plausible.”

Bennett’s backers suggested Ritz was behind the scandal, accusing her and her staff of mining Bennett’s emails and targeting him. In her first year Ritz repeatedly clashed with Indiana State Board Education over A to F grading and has been working on an overhaul of the grading factors. Ritz’s communications director, David Galvin, later acknowledged discovering the emails and turning them over to the state ethics commission.

The commission later brought charges against Bennett, as a result of the emails. Besides discussing Christel House’s grade change, Bennett and his lieutenants traded messages about his re-election effort. The complaint alleged Bennett illegally used the resources of his state office to support his political campaign.

Bennett’s emails revealed occasional communication about campaign events and activities. Also found on the server where emails were kept were two Republican donor lists. Bennett hired a high-powered legal team for his defense, and won a partial victory. He was found guilty of violating ethics law by a state panel and agreed to pay a $5,000 fine as part of a settlement for spending his work time and office computers and telephones for his campaign. The commission, however, noted Bennett could have avoided even that penalty. Indiana law permits elected officials to campaign from their offices as long as they establish policies allowing it, which Bennett never did.

The ethics commission did not explore the ethical implications of the actions of Bennett or his team regarding the state grading system, accepting the conclusions of the state’s investigation.

In late 2014, there were new revelations that a never-released report on Bennett’s actions suggested he could have faced federal charges, but they never came.

Looking ahead

Since his departure, Bennett’s Republican allies in Indiana have fought to try keep Indiana on the path he blazed. While there have been some changes — lawmakers ordered a rewrite of way test score growth was measured under Bennett, for example — mostly the changes he helped institute have continued.

Bennett’s next move remains to be seen. He moved back to southern Indiana from Florida in 2013, and he is now working as a consultant for ACT, the testing company.

Republican proposal would offer aspiring teachers free college tuition

2015-11-17T22:56:24+00:00

A proposed bill in the Indiana legislature would give college students a chance to get their tuition fully paid for by the state if they agree to spend five years teaching in classrooms after they graduate.

Details of the bill — including what it would cost taxpayers — are still in the works. But House Speaker Brian Bosma, R-Indianapolis, said to expect that students who choose to pursue teaching degrees and rank in the top 20 percent of their high school class would be eligible for the lucrative incentive.

That would include tuition at any of Indiana’s public or private institutions, he said. Annual tuition at the University of Notre Dame is $48,000 a year. That’s much more than in-state tuition at public university. At Indiana University, for example, tuition is about $10,300 a year.

Addressing his colleagues on the House floor today during Organization Day, the one-day ceremonial start to the legislative session, Bosma said he hoped the bill would “get Indiana’s best and brightest to the classroom.”

“It’s our goal to attract the top students from Indiana high schools to teaching,” he said. “If we can get them to stay in five years, they’ll be hooked on teaching and consider it more of a career than a vocation.”

The bill, which will be formally introduced when the legislative session begins in January, comes as parts of the state confront difficulties hiring teachers. Chalkbeat has reported that school districts across the state are struggling to recruit teachers qualified to lead special education, math and science classes, especially in rural and low-income urban areas.

Both Republicans and Democrats expressed support for the bill, whcih is similar to a proposal put forth last summer by Democratic Indiana State Board of Education member Gordon Hendry.

“I’m pleased that Speaker Bosma is including the Next Generation Hoosier Educators plan as part of his education agenda in HB 1002,” Hendry said in a series of tweets today. “Making sure there are great teachers in every classroom is critically important to the future of our state, and it’s something we can all work together to solve. I look forward to helping make this plan a reality.”

Hendry introduced his plan in August as concerns about teacher hiring mounted.

Bosma said while House Bill 1002 would be similar to Hendry’s proposal, there would be key differences. For example, teachers would have to teach for five years, not four, to get their tuition paid, and the program would begin in 2017, not 2016.

Hendry estimated that his plan would cost $4.5 million. Bosma did not put a price tag on his plan but said he didn’t think funding would be a barrier, even though 2016 is not a budget year.

“We’re looking for available funds to fund those programs now,” Bosma said. “And if we can’t, we put the girders in place and add the walls next year.”

In his remarks today, Bosma also said he hopes to fast-track a bill to protect teachers from the sting of lower test scores.

As schools brace for expected drops in student ISTEP scores because of tougher standards, Bosma is backing legislation that would “decouple” student scores from teacher evaluations and bonus pay.

“We’d like to get it to the governor’s desk as quickly as possible,” Bosma said.

It’s less clear how the state’s Republican leadership plans to handle the effects of lower scores on the A-F grades assigned to schools. Bosma said lawmakers want to take more time to examine how to adjust grades to account for the expected surge in D and F schools.

ISTEP scores, which are due out in December, are expected to plunge due to the higher cutoff scores needed to pass that were approved by the state board in October. Passing rates are expected to sink an estimated 16 percentage points in English and 24 percentage points in math.

Many states have seen similar student test score drops as they’ve transitioned to tougher standards.

Under current law, schools that receive F-grades can face serious consequences, including being taken over by the state if they can’t raise grades after four years. Teachers who repeatedly see low ratings can face dismissal and might not be eligible for pay raises.

Democrats are urging the Republican leadership to consider altering the letter grades given the expected lower scores.

The Democratic leader in the Senate, Sen. Tim Lanane, D-Anderson, said a dramatic jump in the number of D and F schools could be misleading to the public.

“That’s going to send an unfortunate message, really a misperception, of what’s really going on in our schools,” Lanane said.

Bosma said today that grades can’t be “held harmless” because 2016 grades (determined by a new grade calculation system) will rely more heavily on measuring how students have improved from one year to the next.

Senate President David Long, R-Fort Wayne, said restrictions from the federal government stemming from Indiana’s waiver from sanctions of the No Child Left Behind Law are the problem.

But the state education department said that data will still be collected, whether or not A-F grades are put on hold. That means student growth could be calculated either way.

And, Samantha Hart, a spokeswoman for the education department, said the proposals for a one-year pause in accountability that the department has put forth “are consistent with the spirit of the flexibility (the U.S. Department of Education) has offered.”

State senator: Legislature should pass a bill now to relieve ISTEP sanctions

2015-11-11T20:26:57+00:00

Sen. Mark Stoops, D-Bloomington, today called for the Indiana legislature to take the dramatic step of passing a bill next week during what is normally a mostly ceremonial session to protect schools and teachers from consequences of an expected steep drop in ISTEP scores.

Last school year’s ISTEP was connected to tougher standards, and preliminary data shows far more Indiana children could fail the 2015 exam than in prior years. That could send school A-F grades plummeting and knock down teacher ratings that are partly calculated based on how much students’ scores rise. Final ISTEP scores are expected in December.

Schools can face serious consequences if they are rated an F, including state takeover for those that can’t raise their scores. Teachers can have pay raises blocked or even be fired if they are rated ineffective.

But in an announcement this afternoon, Stoops said lawmakers can help the state avoid all that potential pain and drama. The legislature meets on Tuesday for Organization Day.

“We have shown that the legislature can pass a bill in a matter of hours,” Stoops said. “I think it’s critical we pass this as soon as possible.”

Bills are rarely passed on Organization Day, but it could happen if lawmakers suspend a few rules. Rumors have been circulating — and strongly denied by legislative leaders — that the legislature could pass a bill on Organization Day to expand civil rights laws to add protections for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people. But this is the first suggestion that an education bill could be offered.

Stoops’ bill contains much of what state Superintendent Glenda Ritz has lobbied for over the course of the past few months. It would hold schools and teachers “harmless,” releasing them from any consequences, if ISTEP scores drop for their students. For 2015, schools’ letter grades would only change from what they were in 2014 if they are higher, for example.

The same logic would apply for teacher evaluations and pay bonuses — evaluations could only get better or stay the same but not drop because of lower ISTEP scores. Teacher performance bonuses also couldn’t be lowered because of poor ISTEP results, just raised or held the same.

Stoops argued for action in a letter to Senate President David Long, R-Fort Wayne, by pointing out that state law requires teacher bonus funds to be distributed to schools and districts by Dec. 5.

The cutoff scores to pass ISTEP that were approved by the state board last month are expected to result in big drops for percent of students passing ISTEP — down an estimated 16 percentage points in English and 24 percentage points in math.

Using the passing rates from the 2014 ISTEP test as a guide, and the corresponding letter grades for schools, drops that big could have a dramatic effect on school grades in 2015, education department spokesman Daniel Altman told Chalkbeat last month.

On average, a 20 percentage point drop in the ISTEP passing rate could move the state from almost 54 percent of schools earning A’s last year to as few as 7 percent earning an A for 2015. Along with declines at the top, D’s and F’s could rise from about 8 percent and 5 percent last year to just over 27 percent for both in 2015. School grades aren’t expected to be released until early 2016.

“As a legislature and a state board of education, you can’t be attempting to undermine schools,” Stoops said. “And if we allow these test scores that we know to be flawed to be used to assess and grade teachers and students and schools, I think that’s irresponsible on our part.”

Last month Gov. Mike Pence also announced he wanted to relieve the penalties on teachers for lower expected ISTEP scores, but he has not detailed whether specific legislation is in the works or what his plan might entail.

Long said he supported Pence’s efforts in a statement last month, reversing his own prior position, which was opposed to relieving schools and teachers accountability sanctions. A statement from Long today said he didn’t think legislation needed to be passed so soon to adjust the system.

“I am very mindful of the timeframe for making changes,” Long said in a statement. “If the legislature, the Department of Education and the State Board of Education work together, I believe we can find the flexibility necessary to adjust our systems in a timely fashion without passing legislation on Organization Day.”

This “pause” in accountability has been shot down several times by the Indiana State Board of Education, although final say rests with the General Assembly.

Stoops said that it’s lawmakers responsibility to fix the situation because it was one of their own making.

“We really expect an increase of failing and D-schools in the state,” Stoops said. “That’s a dramatic change and could have a really negative impact on state and local communities. If we as a state legislature truly want to show we really support schools, teachers and students, then we need to make sure that we correct this problem that is largely created by the state legislature.”

State board member calls for Indiana to keep a general diploma

2015-11-03T19:57:11+00:00

Indiana State Board of Education member Steve Yager will offer a resolution Wednesday asking that the board postpones a vote to redefine the state’s high school diplomas, in part to save the general diploma from extinction.

Educators, parents and students in recent months have raised concerns that a plan to eliminate the general diploma, and expect all students to meet tougher graduation requirements, could prevent some students with learning barriers from earning diplomas that can help them get decent jobs.

The board was expected to vote on the new diplomas at its Wednesday meeting, but the resolution posted this morning asks a committee to make revisions instead.

The diploma proposals underwent minor adjustments after the board held a special meeting to seek more public feedback last week, but there were few changes despite thousands of comments from the public. The state’s diploma committee met Friday to weigh the feedback from the public.

Worries were expressed about whether fine arts should be required. Others were concerned that extra math classes that would be required to earn a “workforce ready” diploma, which would replace the state’s current general diploma, were too much. Some also complained that the state shouldn’t require kids to take classes like P.E. but not require music and arts classes.

On Friday, state Superintendent Glenda Ritz said the new diplomas would give students flexibility and help ensure they graduate with skills they’ll need after high school.

“We feel we’ve added (support) for students to be able to accomplish the workforce ready diploma,” Ritz said Friday. “Many of the supports are in math by adding applied math courses. Students take math all four years, and we want to be sure that they are having opportunities to apply the math that they’ve learned.”

Committee member Jason Bearce, with the Commission on Higher education, reiterated Friday that Indiana would also be looking into strengthening the state’s certificates of completion, given to students who come to class but don’t earn a diploma, to make them stronger and more acceptable to employers.

If the resolution is approved, the new recommendations would then return to the board by April 1, 2016. The new diplomas would take effect for the 2018-19 school year.

The board is also expected to discuss a study done on the 2015 ISTEP test that caused board members to push back voting on cut-off scores from early October to last week. The study looked at the differences in difficulty between online and paper test questions and found that online exams were mostly a bit harder, which could require score adjustments of up to nine points in certain subjects.

It’s also possible there could be conversations about Gov. Mike Pence’s announcement that he now favors softening accountability measures for 2014-15 because the state transitioned to new, more challenging standards and tests. Pence said in his announcement that he would work to craft legislation so teachers aren’t penalized in their evaluations or blocked from pay raises for expected drops to 2015 ISTEP scores.

But it’s not yet clear whether, or how, any of that relief would factor into A-F grades.

“With regard to our A-F system, I think it’s important,” Pence said in a more recent statement. “We grade our kids every week. We need to grade our schools every year. We’re going to be working with members of the General Assembly to make sure that when those grades are assigned that they fairly and accurately reflect the efforts of our students and teachers.”

It looks like far fewer Indiana schools could earn an A after ISTEP changes

2015-10-28T20:52:05+00:00

It looks like ISTEP scores will dip considerably when they are released, probably later this year, and one result could be a sharp drop in the number of A-grades schools earn, paired with a big spike in the number of schools that earn D- or F-grades.

That’s what estimates from the Indiana Department of Education show now that the Indiana State Board of Education has set the passing cut-off scores for the ISTEP exams, which are the backbone of the school grading system.

The passing scores are expected to result in big drops for number of students passing ISTEP — down 16 percentage points in English and 24 percentage points in math. Using the passing rates on the 2014 ISTEP test, and the corresponding letter grades for schools, as a guide, drops that big could have a dramatic effect on school grades in 2015, education department spokesman Daniel Altman said.

On average, a 20 percentage point drop in ISTEP scores could move the state from almost 54 percent of schools earning A’s last year to as few as 7 percent earning an A for 2015. Consequently, D’s and F’s could rise from about 8 percent and 5 percent last year to just over 27 percent for both in 2015. School grades aren’t expected to be released until early 2016.

Today, the state board quickly approved the cut-off scores for the 2015 exam, which students took last March and May. The approval vote had been expected at a meeting earlier this month but was postponed at the last minute.

At the board’s Oct. 16 meeting, questions were raised about whether there was a difference between the difficulty of the paper version of ISTEP, which fewer students took, and the online version that most students took. Board members were concerned that the paper version was easier and that the scores needed to be adjusted to equate to the online test. So the board called for an expert evaluation.

The expert report said there was a difference that will require an adjustment. But the work to make that adjustment can go on as the state prepares the scores for release. The board will discuss the adjustment at its Nov. 4 meeting.

Superintendent Glenda Ritz said the big drops in the number of students passing ISTEP were expected. She said she is planning to work with Gov. Mike Pence and legislators to soften the blow that otherwise could fall on teachers and schools, which must raise ISTEP scores or face sanctions such as pay freezes or state takeover.

Pence on Tuesday reversed his past opposition to softening accountability for a “transition year” as the state adjusts to a new, tougher ISTEP. He now says he favors an adjustment to the state’s accountability system so teachers aren’t unfairly penalized if their students’ test scores fall by big margins that are in line with a statewide decline.

“For quite some time I have been talking about Indiana will probably experience a drop in performance as a result of a more rigorous assessment,” Ritz said. “So I’m actually looking forward to the conversations with members of the General Assembly about what kind of flexibility Indiana might want to partake in to actually give relief for assigning of the grades this year.”

Pence said he hoped to help craft new state laws to ease testing sanctions on teachers, but it’s not clear exactly how that would work or whether schools would also get relief if their A-to-F grades drop.

Two key legislative leaders, House education committee chairman Rep. Bob Behning, R-Indianapolis, and Senate education committee chairman Sen. Dennis Kruse, R-Auburn, said earlier this week that they didn’t support a “pause” in the state’s accountability system. The state board has been similarly opposed to such a move.

Ritz has long championed pausing accountability. She has argued the state could skip accountability for a year by not assigning grades or enforcing sanctions, or it could hold schools “harmless” by only releasing school grades for 2015 if they are the same or better than in 2014.

If any part of the state’s accountability system changed, it would have to be approved by the U.S. Department of Education, Altman said, because Indiana has agreed to maintain accountability as part of an agreement that provides a waiver for the state from penalties from the federal No Child Left Behind law. Federal education officials have signaled a willingness to allow such flexibility in recent months.

But board member Gordon Hendry said Indiana students are still showing progress based on newly released scores on the National Assessment for Educational Progress at the same time ISTEP scores are expected to come in much lower. Indiana did as well or better than 2013 on NAEP when it came to math and reading scores. It also outranked most other states, most notably in fourth grade math where Indiana ranked fourth.

“Despite some of the bumps and starts and stops of what’s happened in Indiana education over the last few years, we are seeing significant progress,” Hendry said.”We’re seeing continued success and even improvement in our classrooms.”

In an about-face, Pence joins Ritz in calling for relief from testing sanctions

2015-10-27T21:12:54+00:00

Just months ago, Gov. Mike Pence’s fierce opposition to efforts by state Superintendent Glenda Ritz to get Indiana to at least consider a “pause” to sanctions for schools, teachers and students for low test scores made the topic political kryptonite.

The Indiana State Board of Education refused to even discuss it when Ritz raised the idea in February.

But today Pence reversed course in a letter to Ritz today suggesting teachers shouldn’t be punished for an expected big dip in ISTEP scores the state board is set to discuss Wednesday.

Another key Republican — Senate President David Long, R-Fort Wayne, quickly issued a statement supporting Pence, changing his position, too.

After months of saying that challenging new state standards and ISTEP tests shouldn’t derail state accountability, Gov. Mike Pence wrote to Ritz:

“Our schools and teachers are doing the same great work today as they did in years past; we are experiencing the normal consequences of higher standards and a new exam. Given the transition Indiana has undergone this year with our academic standards and assessment, our response should reflect fairness to our students, our teachers and our schools.”

Pence said he is asking Republican and Democrat lawmakers in the Indiana General Assembly to create legislation that would ensure “test results will not negatively impact teacher evaluations or performance bonuses this year.”

That move is very much in line with a move Ritz for more than a year has lobbied hard for: a temporary pause in accountability. She raised that idea to the state board more than once, only to be shot down each time.

Samantha Hart, Ritz’s spokeswoman, said Ritz welcomes the governor’s decision, but it’s too little, too late given the worry it’s already caused teachers and schools.

“Superintendent Ritz supports strong accountability as long as it is fair, open and transparent,” Hart said in a statement. “The superintendent looks forward to working with Indiana’s leadership to take advantage of federal flexibility for both teacher evaluations and the assignment of A-F accountability grades for the 2014-15 school year.”

As recently as this past spring, after issuing an executive order to shorten ISTEP tests that had grown to more than 12 hours for some students, Pence said accountability was of paramount importance, regardless of changes to tests or standards.

“We grade our kids every day,” Pence said at a press conference in early February. “We can test and grade our schools every year.”

In June of 2014, Pence followed a newspaper column from Ritz advocating for an accountability pause with a letter directly to Arne Duncan, U.S. Secretary of Education, saying a move like this would never happen on his watch.

“Indiana will not go backwards when it comes to measuring performance in our schools on my watch,” he said in the letter to Duncan. “We do not support a pause in accountability as it relates to delivering A to F grades to schools, determining intervention strategies in under-performing schools, or teacher evaluations that reflect classroom performance.”

In Long’s statement today he applauded Pence, but he contradicted his own position from February.

“As we make this transition with our new standards and test, it is important to be as fair as possible to our students, teachers and schools,” Long said in a statement. “It appears that accomplishing this goal may require legislative action, and Senate Republicans are prepared to act as needed. I’m confident we can find a way to modify portions of our accountability system for one year without suspending it.”

Just eight months ago, after Pence dramatically called for rush legislation to shorten ISTEP, Long was on the other side of the fence.

He sent a letter to the state board saying accountability should in no way be changed for one year of test scores. The state’s accountability system primarily affects teacher evaluation ratings and school A-to-F grades. The ratings can block teachers from raises and poor grades can lead schools into state takeover.

“At no time did I suggest that pause in accountability was appropriate; in fact, I expressed grave concern at the impact this delay would have on our children,” Long wrote in a letter from Feb. 11. “I, along with Speaker (Brian) Bosma, support Governor Pence taking bold action to ensure accountability remains in place.”

Pence’s letter to Ritz today isn’t clear about what could happen to A-to-F grades or if they’d be included in the proposed legislation.

“It is important to ensure that our A-F system fairly reflects the efforts of our students and teachers during this transition year,” Pence said. “I welcome recommendations from the board as we craft solutions that preserve accountability and transparency for Indiana’s academic system.”

Advocates, unions react to big drop expected for ISTEP scores

2015-10-13T21:13:09+00:00

The general consensus on fairly steep projected 2015 ISTEP score drops from local business and education reform advocacy groups? It’s par for the course.

Indiana’s move to more demanding standards means a tougher state test and, at least at first, lower scores, they said. But to at least one teachers union leader, big drops in the ISTEP passing rate could create big problems.

The Indiana State Board of Education is expected to vote on recommended ISTEP passing scores at its meeting tomorrow. On average, the passing rates would drop by 16 percentage points on English tests and about 24 percentage points in math if the board approves the recommended cut-off scores.

Those dips are significantly deeper than typical score changes have been year to year. But Institute for Quality Education President Betsey Wiley said in a statement that with a move to a new test, that’s not unheard of.

“Indiana raised the bar for students by increasing its academic standards to better position our next generation for success after high school,” Wiley said. “When states transition to new and more rigorous academic standards, a drop in scores is expected. The decline Indiana saw is not unusual or a cause for panic – other states transitioning to new academic standards saw similar or larger reductions in assessment scores.”

The institute advocates for school choice and other educational changes in Indiana.

The score drops also indicate, in a way, that Indiana is doing a better job of educating kids overall, said Stand for Children’s executive director Justin Ohlemiller. His group had pushed for changes in IPS like more school autonomy and has backed state policies calling for greater expectations for students and teachers.

“For far too long, we had high standards, but a low-quality ISTEP test that fell well short of truly measuring whether a student has the tools needed to succeed after high school,” Ohlemiller said in a statement. “This old system put kids at risk of dropping out of college before graduation, and even more tragically, gave others false hope that they were on a college track, when they didn’t qualify.

The Indiana Chamber of Commerce President Kevin Brinegar also argued Indiana is doing no better or worse than other states that switched to more challenging academic standards, which are expectations for what kids should be learning each year.

But lower ISTEP scores could have big consequences for schools as the state’s test-based, A-to-F accountability system was not adjusted to anticipate a drop in scores or account for two tests that are based on different standards.

Rick Muir, the president of the Indiana chapter of the American Federation of Teachers, said the result for troubled schools could be overly harsh while benefiting outside organizations, including for-profit companies, that could more easily take over those schools.

“Do I think they should move away from (A-to-F grades)? I most certainly do,” Muir said. “Do I think they will? No. If the people currently in control of decisions stay where they are, this is what will happen.”

Schools that earn poor grades year after year can see serious action from the state, the most severe being that the state could take over the school after four years of F-grades.

Testing has a place, Muir said, but it’s been way too much of a focus.

Kim Clements-Johnson, spokeswoman for the Indiana State Teachers Association noted the recommended passing scores aren’t final yet.

“It’s a new test and difficult to assess the impact or differences from prior years without the final scores and analysis,” she said. “We continue to stress that standardized tests have a place, but the overemphasis on testing has lost its balance.”

The score drops could, however, be the spark needed to start more conversations about change in how states measure success on tests, Muir said.

“I think the truth is coming out,” Muir said. “I think the public is starting to see it. I think politicians might be waking up to the fact that this isn’t just in Indiana. We’ve been set up for failure.”

State board decision Wednesday could mean a big drop in ISTEP passing rates

2015-10-13T01:50:27+00:00

ISTEP test passing rates could plummet by about 16 percentage points in English and 24 percentage points in math compared to 2014 if the Indiana State Board of Education approves a recommendation from educator panels Wednesday.

Those drops are significantly worse than in prior years. ISTEP rarely has swung up or down by more than a few percentage points since 2010. But there’s a good reason, Indiana Department of Education spokesman Daniel Altman said.

“It’s not exactly an apple to apples comparison because this is the first time we’ve been testing on new standards,” he said. “With more rigorous standards come higher expectations as well.”

Setting standardized test passing rates is an inexact science at best. Panels of educators work with test companies to determine just how much they think students can achieve and then reach a consensus recommendation for where the state board should set the cut-off score.

That’s what the state board is expected to decide on Wednesday.

Although the process Indiana uses to set passing scores is widely used and considered valid, some experts think politics can too easily get in the way. State agencies, such as the state board, have the leeway to alter the passing rates because they set the cut-off scores after they see how they could affect the state test passing rates.

The biggest swings in passing rates would be in math. Almost 82 percent of eighth-graders passed in 2014, but about 52 percent would pass in 2015 if the board approves the recommended scores. Seventh-graders would also face an almost 30 percentage point drop. The highest percent of students passing math would be 66.5 percent in fifth-grade.

In English, passing rates would drop by as much as 18.8 percentage points for fifth-graders, for whom 62.7 percent would pass in 2015 compared to 89.3 percent in 2014 based on the recommendations. The highest passing rate for 2015 English would be for third-graders at 70.9 percent passing.

Overall, scores would shift to about 65 percent of students passing English in 2015, down from 80.7 percent of students passing in 2014. About 59 percent of students would pass math in 2015, down from 83.5 percent in 2014.

State Superintendent Glenda Ritz has warned for months that test scores would fall with a tougher exam based on more challenging academic standards. But her calls for relaxing the state’s A-to-F grading system during the transition to the new exam have been rejected by the state board.

“It’s not fair to schools, it’s not fair to kids, it’s not fair to communities,” Altman said. “If you have all of a sudden a lot of school that aren’t doing well on their (A-to-F grades), that has a significant impact on real estate values across the state. It has impact on economic development.”

State board spokesman Marc Lotter said that with new tests, passing rate drops aren’t unusual — in Indiana or across the country. Other states, including Illinois, New York and Kentucky, have also reported score dips as they switch to tests designed to measure more challenging academic standards.

“The most important message out of this is that we not get singularly focused on a score drop or a change in scores from two tests that are completely different, and one test is much more difficult,” Lotter said. “And we need to remember why we are doing this in the first place: to make sure Hoosier kids are leaving school prepared for success in life.”

For states adopting new standards and new tests, the U.S. Department of Education has offered some relief for the year the switch happens. Indiana has not pursued this option to “pause” accountability and alter a “waiver” agreement that released the state from sanctions of the federal No Child Left Behind Law. The waiver was renewed without changes to A-to-F grading for another three years in June.

Lotter said the state board couldn’t change how grades are issued this year anyway. That require changes to state law by the Indiana legislature.

A legal opinion from September written by Matt Light, with the state’s attorney general’s office, blocked Ritz’s proposal that A-to-F school grades be “paused” for 2014-15. Ritz suggested grades only be changed and made public if they were better than those from 2014. If scores went down, she said, grades should stay the same.

Ritz and her team have tried to persuade the state board to “pause” accountability and school grades several times. Recently, those arguments have been spurred on by difficulties schools have had as they quickly implement new academic standards and give new tests after Indiana dumped Common Core standards in 2014.

“We’ve been working on more rigorous standards that obviously also have a more rigorous assessment,” Altman said. “The problem is the accountability system treats it like it’s the same thing we’ve done in the past when it just isn’t. And you can tell it isn’t when you look at the numbers.”

Rejecting Ritz's logic, state board promises A-to-F grades will be issued

2015-09-16T23:14:54+00:00

Indiana schools will have A-to-F grades for 2014-15, although they probably won’t be publicly released until 2016.

The Indiana State Board of Education today approved a resolution that orders state Superintendent Glenda Ritz to issue school A-to-F grades for 2014-15 despite earlier questions raised by Ritz about whether the board’s earlier actions caused the rules for calculating those grades to expire.

That could have meant the Indiana Department of Education would have no formal guidelines for assigning grades. But the state board rejected Ritz’s argument and insisted last year’s rules are still in effect.

“This has been a very confusing process with the rules expiring, the emergency rules,” Ritz said. “I just want to say I’m glad we’re headed to the new rules and the new measures and the new metrics, and we’re moving as fast as we can toward that.”

Education department spokesman Daniel Altman said the tentative date for final grades being submitted to the state board for approval is Jan. 18. Typically, grades are finalized well before year’s end, but the company that makes ISTEP, California-based CTB, reported scoring problems last month that have caused the delay. Schools are expected to get preliminary score data by Dec. 1.

“Obviously we’re dealing with the delay from CTB,” Altman said. “We’ve been working significantly with state board staff and legislative staff and stakeholders to get the timeline as reduced as it could be, and we’re going to get information to schools as soon as it’s possible.”

A letter from Rep. Tim Brown, R-Crawfordsville, expressed concern that grades wouldn’t be issued before the state’s Jan. 31 deadline for when districts must give performance bonuses to teachers. Brown chairs the budget making Ways and Means Committee in the Indiana House. If that bonus money is not used by then, state board spokesman Marc Lotter said, it could go back to the education department rather than be paid to teachers.

The board voted 9-0 to approve the resolution to issue the grades, with Ritz abstaining. When asked by board member Gordon Hendry why she chose not to vote, Ritz cited the confusion about the rules.

“I choose to, I guess, because of the confusing nature of the entire piece and the resolution enacting a rule that is expired,” she said. “It’s probably more procedural than anything.”

Lotter said 2014-15 grades would be determined using the same system as in 2013-14. A new model for figuring out school grades will equally weigh student scores and improvement over prior years. It will be used for the first time for 2015-16 grades.

An A-to-F grade delay can cause schools a variety of problems, as the scores are used in part to determine teacher raises, as well as guide the state board to decide if it needs to take over schools with repeated F-grades.

Ritz’s team argued earlier this month that the state board’s actions last year to change the way they issued grades for a handful of schools with unusual grade configurations — such as those with some elementary grades and some high school grades — had a secondary effect of invalidating the entire A-to-F system.

The rules, they said, indicate even a small change means there is a new system, and that the old system no longer is in effect.

The Indiana attorney general’s office said in a letter to the board and the department that an expiring emergency rule would not invalidate A-to-F grades and doesn’t negate state law that requires grades to be issued each year.

A legal opinion from Matt Light, with the state’s attorney general’s office, also blocks another proposal Ritz has made. She has suggested A-to-F school grades be “paused” for 2014-15. Ritz proposed grades only be changed and made public if they were better than those from 2014. If scores went down, she said, grades should stay the same.

Pausing grades is “inconsistent with statutory requirements and provisions relating to placement of schools in A-F categories for school performance and accountability,” Light wrote.

Light wrote that while it might be valid to argue that new standards and new tests had an effect on accountability, it doesn’t mean that withholding grades is the best option. Plus, he wrote, there’s no evidence that the 2015 ISTEP test isn’t valid or reliable.

“There is always a difficult balance to be struck between the need to establish the validity and reliability of the test items against the burden of time needed to test the items,” his letter said.

State Board of Education will take on A-to-F delay this week

2015-09-14T12:00:34+00:00

The Indiana State Board of Education is expected to vote to direct state Superintendent Glenda Ritz to issue delayed school A-to-F grades for 2014-15 at its meeting Wednesday despite questions raised by Ritz about whether the rules for calculating those grades have technically expired.

Last month, test-maker CTB said its problems scoring state ISTEP tests would delay the release of student scores — the backbone of state systems for rating both schools and teachers — by several months. That long a delay can mean all sorts of problems. Schools use the scores to help determine teacher raises, for example, and A-to-F grades help the state board decide if it needs to take over schools with repeated F-grades.

But the problems go beyond the late-arriving test scores.

The rules, they said, indicate even a small change means there is a new system, and the old system no longer is in effect.

That’s not true, said Rep. Bob Behning, chairman of the House Education Committee. The General Assembly never intended to create a system that could fall apart so easily, he said.

“There was never intent for us to unravel our accountability over this,” Behning said. “A rule generally never trumps law, and the rule is still the place it’s been in statue that we have to issue A-to-F grades.”

If there was a problem with the rule or their interpretation, he said, it was up to the Indiana Department of Education to ask for a fix during the legislative session.

“If you knew about it, and your timeline is such that you knew that this was a problem before or even during session, isn’t it your responsibility as an agency to share with the legislative leadership that you’ve got some concerns and you want guidance, rather than wait until everyone is gone?” Behning said.

Matt Light, from the Indiana attorney general’s office, said in a letter to the board and the department that an expiring emergency rule would not invalidate A-to-F grades and doesn’t negate state law that requires grades to be issued each year.

In fact, that same law blocks another proposal Ritz has made, he wrote. She has suggested A-to-F school grades be “paused” for 2014-15. Ritz proposed grades only be changed and made public if they were better than those from 2014. If scores went down, she said, grades should stay the same.

That won’t work, Light wrote.

“We do not believe schools could be treated differently in this context, which would be the case if some schools are graded just based on ’14-’15 data and others are graded based on multiple years’ data,” he wrote.

A new system for determining A-to-F grades that equally weighs student scores and improvement over prior years goes into effect for 2016 grades.

Also at Wednesday’s meeting, the board is expected to vote on:

New rules for reporting discipline data. The changes would simplify parts of the reporting process for schools by including data on bullying, arrests, gang activity and restraint and seclusion incidents into a single collection. The state is also adding new categories schools can use to report incidents, including theft, sexual misconduct and technology misuse, so they don’t have to use the vague “other” category. This kind of clarification, some educators say, could help reduce cases where black students are disciplined more frequently and harshly than others.

Final cut-off scores for teacher licensure tests. Last month the board gave initial approval to changes to teacher tests that would make them easier to pass in some subjects and harder to pass in others.

College and career readiness test details. Students who don’t make the recommended cut-off scores on tests commonly used for college admission, such as the ACT and SAT, fail Indiana’s state end-of-course exams or get at least a B-grade in advanced or dual credit classes are required by state law to take the college Accuplacer test as high school juniors. The test is used by colleges to determine if incoming students need remedial classes. If those scores are lower than what is recommended for admission by Ivy Tech Community College, schools will be able to use the results to see where students might need extra help to be ready for college. The board must approve what criteria make a student eligible to take the test.

IPS neighborhood schools dominate lowest test-scorers

2015-08-24T13:00:41+00:00

When it comes to the lowest-scoring schools in the Indianapolis Public School District, making changes has proven difficult.

In fact, of the 15 F-rated schools in the district in 2013-14, all but two of them were also rated an F the year before. All of the bottom 10 lowest-scoring IPS schools on ISTEP are neighborhood schools. Not one of them is a magnet school, which tend to serve enrollments with fewer kids who face extra challenges such as learning English as a new language or needing special education services.

In fact, only one magnet school earned an F — Key Learning Community’s elementary school — and its main problem was it could not maintain the huge surge in the number of students who passed the prior year.

Over the next few weeks, Chalkbeat will publish short profiles of the top-scoring, and lowest-scoring, Marion County schools on ISTEP for three types of schools — Indianapolis Public Schools, township schools and charter schools. Find our story on the top-rated IPS schools here.

The other group that dominated the F-rated school list in IPS is junior high schools. Even at IPS’s top-rated high school — Crispus Attucks High School, which earned an A in 2014 — students in junior high school grades earned a separate rating of F.

Shortly after he arrived in Indianapolis in 2013, Superintendent Lewis Ferebee declared 11 schools that were not improving in need of major help for low test scores. Eight of those remained an F at the end of the 2013-14 school year. (ISTEP scores and grades for the 2014-15 school year are not expected to be released until late this year or early next year.)

But there are efforts underway to improve those schools, including some high-profile overhauls.

Here are the 10 IPS schools that have the lowest ISTEP passing rates in 2014:

School 103

Also called Francis Scott Key Elementary School, this neighborhood school has been a long-time poor performing school when it comes to passing state tests. Located on the city’s Northeast side, School 103 has 341 students and has earned four consecutive F grades.

F-rated School 103 became a Phalen Leadership Academy-managed school this year, and is the hub of a new community partnership on the East side.

Its grade has never been higher than a C in the past eight years. More alarming, its ISTEP passing rate has been trending down for seven years to a very low 15 percent passing last year from 47 percent in 2009.

That means not even two of every 10 students at the school could pass state tests in reading and math. The district average for IPS was 51 percent that year, and the state average was 74 percent.

But a dramatic change is underway at the school. This year it will be run by the operators of the Phalen Leadership Academy charter school under a first-of-its-kind partnership with IPS.

The challenge is steep, as the students face many barriers to learning. About 84 percent of the students are poor enough to qualify for free or reduced-price lunch. To qualify, a family of four cannot earn more than $44,863 annually. Districtwide, about 76 percent of students qualify for free or reduced-price lunch.

School 103 also has a large percentage of students in special education at 21 percent, which is above the district average of 18 percent. About 9 percent are English-language learners at the school, less than the 16 percent district average.

The school is about 78 percent black, 11 percent Hispanic and 18 percent white. The district averages are 20 percent white, 50 percent black and 23 percent Hispanic.

School 107

Also called Lew Wallace Elementary School, this school is a neighborhood school located on the West side. The school dropped to an F in 2014 and 2013 after a pair of C’s the prior two years. Its ISTEP passing rate dropped dramatically to 27 percent in 2014 from 43 percent the prior year.

School 107 has a new principal this year who hopes to raise reading scores.

The school has a new principal this year. Jeremy Baugh previously worked at the Phalen Leadership Academy charter school, the same organization that will manage School 103 this year. The school has ambitious goals, including raising reading scores dramatically.

School 107 has one of the largest shares of students in special education among IPS schools at 29 percent. About 67 percent of the 464 students enrolled are black, 18 percent are Hispanic and 12 percent white. Roughly 5 percent of students who attend the school are still learning English as a new language.

School 63

Also called Wendell Phillips Elementary School, it is a neighborhood school located just west of downtown and enrolls about 370 students.

School 63 has seen test scores drop as it fell to the state’s bottom rating in 2013.

The school has a rich history, opening in 1911 to serve black families in the city’s Haughville neighborhood. It closed as part of an integration plan in the 1980s, but a new school was built at the site, and it re-opened in 2006.

School 63 was rated an A-school its first two years after it reopened but has not been above a C since. It earned an F the most recent two years. Test scores have been falling. Just 30 percent passed ISTEP in 2014, down from 36 percent and 52 percent the prior two years.

Children from families that are poor enough to qualify for free or reduced price lunch make up about 77 percent of those enrolled. About 73 percent of the students are black, 12 percent Hispanic and 10 percent white. Roughly 15 percent are in special education and 5 percent are English-language learners.

School 44

Also called Riverside Elementary School, this is a neighborhood school with about 420 students on the city’s North side. The school has not seen a grade above a D since 2005 and earned an F the most recent three years.

School 44 has seen some modest gains in test scores the past two years.

Test scores have slowly crept up to 30 percent in 2014 from a low of 23 percent in 2012. But even after the improvement the school ranks in the bottom 10 IPS schools on ISTEP.

School 44 has higher poverty than the average IPS school. About 79 percent of students are poor enough to qualify for free or reduced-price lunch. Students in special education account for about 16 percent of those enrolled, and about 4 percent are English language learners.

Roughly 75 percent of students are black, 12 percent Hispanic and 8 percent white.

School 69

Also called Joyce Kilmer Elementary School and located on the North side of Indianapolis, School 69 was rated an A in 2010 but has earned four straight F’s since then.

IPS School 69 has been rated an F for four straight years because of low test scores.

The school, serving about 375 students, has seen a slow but steady gain in test scores to 33 percent passing ISTEP in 2014 from 18 percent in 2012. Still, it remains one of the district’s lowest performers. The school has not exceeded 35 percent passing ISTEP in seven years.

This is another example of a neighborhood school with high poverty. With about 84 percent of students qualifying for free and reduced-price lunch, the school has more poor children than most. Roughly 17 percent of students are in special education, and less than 1 percent are English-language learners.

About 80 percent of kids enrolled are black, 2 percent Hispanic and 2 percent white.

School 93

Also called George H. Fisher Elementary School, School 93 is a neighborhood school undergoing a transformation aimed at dramatically improving its test scores.

Parents like Kesha Harris gathered signatures in 2014 to bring Project Restore to School 93.

Located on Indianapolis’ Northeast side, School 93 had two A’s and a B between 2005 and 2009. But since then, it has earned four consecutive F’s. About 35 percent of School 93’s students passed ISTEP in 2014, up five points from the prior year, but still far from the 53 percent passing the school had in 2008.

After a parent petition, the school district last year installed the Project Restore program at the school. Project Restore is a system invented by teachers at School 99 that seeks to improve discipline through consistent rule enforcement and promote better student learning through frequent testing and review of what’s been taught. This will be the second year for Project Restore at the school.

Of the 414 students, about 82 percent are black, 8 percent white and 5 percent Hispanic. Roughly 15 percent are in special education, and 1 percent are English-language learners. About 77 percent are poor enough to qualify for free or reduced-price lunch.

School 15

Also called Thomas D. Gregg Elementary School, this neighborhood school is located east of downtown and is one of the few school that ranked among the district’s bottom 10 for ISTEP scores that did not receive an F-grade.

Despite low test scores, School 15 moved up to a D from an F because scores improved enough to earn extra credit from the state.

The school earned a D, helped by strong test score growth.

School 15 is a large school, with 640 students, and faces some of the most difficult changes common in IPS. For example, the school has more children from poor families than nearly all schools, with about 97 percent qualifying for free or reduced-price lunch.

It is one of the few IPS school in which a majority of students are Hispanic, at about 44 percent. The percentage of students learning English as a new language is also nearly twice the district average at about 35 percent. School 15 is above the district average for students in special education at about 20 percent. Roughly 39 percent of students are black and 13 percent white.

The school moved up to a D in 2014 after consecutive F-grades. Its 39.6 percent passing rate on ISTEP in 2014 was slightly down from the prior year overall but the passing rate has stayed mostly steady, if low, for several years.

There are several new teachers this year as part of a renewed effort to improve the school.

School 55

Also known as Eliza Blaker Elementary School, this is a neighborhood school on the East side of Indianapolis and is one of the smallest elementary schools with just 211 students.

It was an A-school as recently as 2006 but has not had a grade above D since 2008. It was rated an F in 2014 and 2013. School 55’s ISTEP passing rate fell in 2014 for the fourth straight year to 39 percent. It hasn’t exceeded 50 percent since 2007.

About 67 percent of students are from families that are poor enough to qualify for free and reduced-price lunch. The school is about 70 percent black, 16 percent white and 8 percent Hispanic. Roughly 20 percent of students are in special education, and about 2 percent are learning English as a new language.

School 61

Also called Clarence Farrington Elementary School, this is a neighborhood school located on the Northwest side of the city. This school’s grade moved up slightly to a D in 2014 after several years in decline.

School 61’s grade moved up to a D in 2014 but its test scores still rank among the district’s lowest.

Principal Carole Wilson is in her third year of pushing an overhaul of the school, which has included several new teachers.

School 61’s grade dropped from an A in 2007 to a pair of C’s and then a D in 2011. Consecutive F’s followed. The percent of students passing ISTEP at School 61 has hovered around 40 percent passing for eight years, with a low of 34 percent in 2008 and a high of 46 percent in 2009. Last year about 40 percent passed ISTEP.

It is a large school with about 567 students and demographically split: 47 percent black, 47 percent Hispanic and 4 percent white. About 75 percent of students are from families that are poor enough to qualify for free and reduced-price lunch.

School 61 has one of the largest shares of students learning English as a new language at 41 percent. Nearly 13 percent of student are in special education.

School 48

Also called Louis B. Russell Jr. Elementary School, this is a neighborhood school located on the North side and serves about 409 students. Rated an F in 2014 and 2013, the school has not been above a D in six years.

School 48 has not been rated higher than a D in six years.

School 48 had seen three years of gains on ISTEP before its passing rate fell slightly in 2014 to 43 percent.

About 78 percent of students enrolled at the school come from families that are poor enough to qualify for free or reduced-price lunch. School 48 is one of the most racially isolated schools in all of IPS — about 92 percent of its students are black, while only 3 percent are Hispanic and just 2 percent are white.

A large share of the students are in special education at 24 percent. Only 1 percent are English-language learners.

Seven other IPS schools rated F

Two other IPS elementary schools and five junior high schools were rated an F in 2014. Junior high school test performance has been an ongoing problem and prompted Ferebee to say he would like to move the district toward K-8 elementary schools instead of stand-alone middle schools or pairing middle school and high school students together in one building. (Chalkbeat did not include junior high schools in the ISTEP rankings because they have far fewer students taking the test than elementary schools.)

Here are the seven other IPS schools rated an F:

School 42. Also called Elder W. Diggs Elementary School, this is is a neighborhood school on Indianapolis’ North side. Its grade fell to an F in 2012 and has stayed there. The school’s 42 percent ISTEP passing rate has barely budged in the past eight years. Its highest rate was 45 percent passing in 2007 and lowest was 33 percent passing in 2009.
Key Learning Community Elementary School. In some ways, Key, a magnet school for project-based learning, is a victim of its own success. The school jumped to an A in 2013 with a huge gain of 21 percentage points on its ISTEP passing rate to 57 percent. But then the school’s fall back to 46 percent passing was so steep that its grade also fell back to an F.
Broad Ripple Junior High School. Like most IPS high schools, Broad Ripple has both high school and junior high school grades. Students in grades 9-12 are considered high school, while those in grades 6-8 make up the junior high school. The high school has seen improved scores, but the scores at its middle school have remained a trouble spot. The junior high school has been rated an F for two years, and its ISTEP passing percentage also went down 12 percentage points to 44 percent.
Crispus Attucks Junior High School. This is another example of a high school that has seen good performance — an A rating last year — but where those results have not translated to junior high school success. The junior high school test scores have dropped by 14 percentage points over three years to 44 percent and earned the school consecutive F-grades.
George Washington Junior High School. The seventh and eighth graders at George Washington posted one of the worst passing rates in the state on ISTEP at 18 percent passing. The school has been F rated for two straight years, and scores have been falling for three years.
Northwest Junior High School. Junior high school test scores at Northwest are very low at 21 percent passing ISTEP. The school has been rated an F for three straight years.
John Marshall Junior High School. The worst ISTEP passing rate among all IPS junior high schools — and one of the lowest rates in Indiana — belongs to John Marshall. Just 14 percent of junior high school students passed ISTEP, earning the school its third straight F-grade.

Indiana earns 3 more years free from NCLB sanctions

2015-07-23T19:39:59+00:00

The U.S. Department of Education notified Indiana today that it would have its waiver from consequences of the federal No Child Left Behind Law extended for three more years.

State Superintendent Glenda Ritz said the extension benefits the whole state, especially when it comes to how schools are allowed to use their federal funding.

“Because of this waiver, local schools throughout our state will continue to have more control over how they use precious federal resources,” Ritz said in a statement.

Although Indiana won’t have to submit a new waiver application for three more years, the state will continue to negotiate questions about testing and accountability with federal officials.

Ritz went to the Indiana State Board of Education in July and asked for support for her plan to shift the way the state calculates A-to-F school letter grades to soften the blow for some schools who have been adjusting to new, more rigorous tests and academic standards this year. Ritz said Indiana should expect to see lower test scores for most students, meaning school grades could drop.

But Ritz’s staff told the state board that any changes to letter grades would comply with federal regulations and would still allow the state to take action to overhaul failing schools. If A-to-F grades are adjusted, the U.S. Department of Education will need to sign off on it.

At the July meeting, board members said they wanted input from the state attorney general before they made a decision.

The No Child Left Behind law was signed in 2002 by then-President George W. Bush. It asked that states test kids every year in English and math, keep track of school progress and make that data public.

But the law also required that all children earn passing scores on state tests by 2014 or face sanctions, an idea which states said was simply unrealistic. So in 2012, President Barack Obama’s administration began offering schools waivers that released them from sanctions if they agreed to make changes to their testing and teacher evaluation systems.

Those sanctions could have included limitations on how schools can spend federal aid, and possibly even have forced drastic actions, such as firing school principals and other staff at low-scoring schools and requiring the district to publicly notify parents that schools are failing.

In exchange for the waiver, Indiana agreed it would adopt new academic standards that ensure students are ready for college and careers, get involved in making changes at schools that are consistently failing and use a new evaluation system to raise expectations for teachers.

To see more about the background of Indiana’s NCLB waiver and how we got here, check out our basics post.

Indiana finalizes new A-to-F model for 2015-16

2015-07-17T15:25:43+00:00

Indiana’s new A-to-F school letter grade model was given final approval by state officials today for use during the 2015-16 school year.

The new A-to-F rules, which were passed by the Indiana State Board of Education in an 8-1 vote after contentious debate in May, change how grades will be calculated next spring. They then had to be approved by Gov. Mike Pence, the Attorney General’s office and the Legislative Services Agency. Now, the model equally weighs test passing rates and student test score improvement — the previous one didn’t significantly consider student growth.

Sarah O’Brien, a teacher in Avon and the vice chairwoman of the board, said the changes were met with approval from educators.

“This new A-F rule represents nearly two years of work led by Gov. Mike Pence, Superintendent Glenda Ritz and educators across the state,” she said. “It marks a major change in the way the state calculates school grades by giving equal weight to student performance and growth, a change many teachers and administrators across the state strongly supported.”

In elementary and middle schools, ISTEP scores will be the only factor that determine grades. For high schools, 60 percent of the score would include measures such as four-year and five-year graduation rate, the number of students who pass Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate tests and those who earn professional credentials before graduation.

But the new model would also make it difficult for all schools to earn A’s because of new federal requirements under the No Child Left Behind law and Indiana’s waiver agreement.

The U.S. Department of Education wants to make sure the state shows that all schools are making test score gains, even by a small margin. The department especially wants to see that students from specific subgroups — such as ethnic minorities, English language learners and those in special education programs — are improving.

If schools can’t show those gains, the best score they could get is a B.

For more on the new A-to-F letter grade rules, check out our previous reporting.

Test yourself: Do you know the basics of Indiana education?

2015-07-17T09:00:48+00:00

[slickquiz id=2]

The basics of Indiana’s NCLB waiver: An ongoing debate

2015-07-15T10:00:18+00:00

(This story is one in a series exploring the basics of key issues in education in Indiana. For a list of the issues and links to the other stories, find a full index of all the Chalkbeat “basics” stories, go here.)
In 2012, Indiana negotiated a release from some of the sanctions of the federal No Child Left Behind law, making promises to the U.S. Department of Education in exchange.

Ever since, managing this “waiver” has been, to put it simply, a bit messy.

The back-and-forth over the waiver has included sparring between state Superintendent Glenda Ritz and the Indiana State Board of Education.

Ritz and her team at the Indiana Department of Education say they immediately faced a series of challenges when they came into office in 2013 that were not their doing — a need to verify the quality of new standards, design new tests to match them and improve the system to monitor low-performing schools — and have been working to meet federal expectations from the start.

But Ritz’s critics, including current and former state board members, argued she mishandled major parts of the waiver requirements — namely in her plans to turn around failing schools — bringing on scrutiny from the U.S. Department of Education.

The state has taken many steps since 2013 to fall in line with requirements from the federal government to make sure Indiana doesn’t lose its waiver. Losing it could bring serious consequences: limitations on how schools can spend federal aid, and possibly even drastic changes such as firing school principals and other staff at low-scoring schools and requiring the district publicly notify parents that schools are failing.

Indiana submitted a request at the end of June asking to renew its waiver for up to three years. But the state’s A-to-F school grading system has also come into play — any changes to how grades are given in 2015 would need to be approved by the state board, the U.S. Department of Education and possibly even the General Assembly.

Schools struggle to carry out federal law

President George W. Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act in 2002 in hopes of guaranteeing schools were serving students from all backgrounds equally and holding schools to high expectations.

The law required schools to test students in English, math and science. No longer could schools hold back data on groups of students who consistently performed poorly. That was intended to allow parents and others to see if all students were passing tests, or if some groups of kids were falling short in greater numbers.

But schools struggled to meet a requirement in the law that all students be “proficient” on state tests by 2014. Some educators called NCLB an “unfunded mandate” that forced them to implement certain programs and processes, but gave them no extra money or other help to do so.

In 2012, President Barack Obama’s administration began offering waivers from aspects of the law. The waiver said that schools could escape NCLB’s sanctions if they agreed to change state laws to conform with federal expectations for tests, standards, teacher evaluation and oversight of the lowest scoring schools.

In Indiana, education leaders promised to publicly give schools letter grades based on test scores and other factors. The state also said it would adopt Common Core standards that would make sure kids were prepared for college and careers.

But when it abandoned Common Core standards just two years later, federal officials asked for assurance the state was keeping its promises.

Big policy changes throw wrench in waiver renewal plans

Ritz’s upset over then-Superintendent Tony Bennett in the 2012 election coincided with more than two years of sweeping policy changes in Indiana. Some were taking place at the same time the U.S. Department of Education did its yearly review of Indiana’s waiver compliance in 2013.

The largest battle was over Common Core. State leaders that year asked the General Assembly to pause the state’s plan to put the new standards into effect. Conservatives raised concerns over the quality of the standards, which were purported to be more challenging than existing ones, and worried about giving too much control over the state’s education system to the U.S. Department of Education.

In, 2014, the state voided its adoption of Common Core altogether. It happened quickly and followed Gov. Mike Pence’s decision to withdraw Indiana from the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers testing consortium, or PARCC.

Indiana then decided to write its own standards and tests for the 2014-15 school year, with both Pence and Ritz supporting that approach.

But the switch brought questions from federal officials.

In May of 2014, the U.S. Department of Education told the state it wanted proof the new standards qualified as “college and career ready” that new state tests would measure those standards and that the state was effectively monitoring schools with consistently low test scores.

Assistant U.S. Secretary of Education Deb Delisle sent Ritz a letter giving her 60 days to draw up a plan explaining how Indiana would address the problem areas.

That worried the state board — the waiver was Ritz’s responsibility, board members said, and they questioned if she was doing enough to make sure Indiana didn’t jeopardize the waiver. Some also were critical of how she and the education department was monitoring low-performing schools.

But Ritz said it was entirely expected that the U.S. Department of Education would have questions after such big changes to Indiana’s standards and tests.

She argued she had also overhauled the state’s school improvement and turnaround office, replacing it with 20 outreach coordinators to serve 300 troubled schools across the state to help assess their needs and shore up their programs. But that work came after the federal waiver review in 2013, she said.

Federal officials sided with Ritz. Indiana got its waiver extended in August of 2014 through June 2015.

A new federal law
In late 2015, the U.S. Congress passed a law replacing No Child Left Behind. It’s called the Every Student Succeeds Act. The biggest difference is that the new law gives states much more flexibility to make decisions about their testing and accountability systems that likely won’t as often require federal sign off.

So what does that mean for the NCLB waivers? Probably they will fade into memory. It’s likely that the U.S. Department of Education will work with states to transfer over control over many of the items that were stipulated in the waiver agreements.

It remains to be seen what Indiana will do with this new authority. Already lawmakers are saying they would like to look at changes to the state’s testing system, perhaps even exploring new state tests.

-Updated December 2015

A-to-F grade 'pause' won't harm NCLB waiver renewal, Ritz's team says

2015-06-30T11:30:08+00:00

Indiana state Superintendent Glenda Ritz on Wednesday again will propose a shift in the way A-to-F grades should be applied to schools next year, this time suggesting grades issued this fall should only be made public if they improve over last year.

The move would need approval from state and federal officials, but it is allowed under the state’s federally-approved waiver from sanctions under the No Child Left Behind law, Ritz’s team said in a memo.

But the first step is to ask the blessing of the Indiana State Board of Education at its meeting Wednesday. The board has resisted Ritz’s suggestions in the past that the state “pause” the effects of A-to-F grades.

State board member Sarah O’Brien said the move would be changing direction from what Indiana just promised it would do when it asked for its waiver.

“I think it’s important for us to note in the first place that with the application we have submitted that we will be holding schools accountable through the last testing session,” O’Brien said. “It’s important that we respect that.”

Ritz said last month that the state had submitted a request for a three-year renewal of its waiver from sanctions of the federal law, which she expected to be approved. Last year, the U.S. Department of Education raised concerns about whether Indiana was living up to its waiver agreement, putting the state on the equivalent of probation for three months.

That touched off a series of heated debates among Ritz and state board members about who was to blame before federal officials granted a one-year extension. A decision could come on the longer renewal any time after today’s U.S. Department of Education deadline passes.

In a memo to board members, Michele Walker, head of testing and accountability for the Indiana Department of Education, outlined options the board might consider for 2014-15 A-to-F grades. Ritz has cited changes in academic standards and the rigor of state tests as reasons to soften the blow for schools if they cause grades to fall.

“Many options would require Indiana General Assembly action and others would not,” Walker wrote. “However, all options require State Board of Education support since the board has final approval of placement of school grades.”

All the options would still allow the state to take over or order changes at schools that reached six straight years of F grades, Walker wrote, and also would meet federal requirements.

Grappling with federal law

No Child Left Behind, signed in 2002 under then-President George W. Bush, required states to annually test students in English and math, record school progress and make that data public.

It also required that all children earn a passing score on state tests by 2014 or face sanctions, a mandate states complained in 2012 were unrealistic and unfair. So President Barack Obama’s administration began offering schools waivers that released Indiana and most other states from sanctions if they agreed to make changes to their testing and teacher evaluation systems.

Indiana promised it would adopt more rigorous academic standards — aimed at making sure students are ready for college and careers — take action when schools repeatedly fail and use a new evaluation system to raise expectations for teachers.

But earlier this year, the U.S. Congress began discussing changes to NCLB that might accompany a re-authorization of the law.

One possible change could be looser requirements for how states must construct their state tests and flexibility for states that want to release schools from penalties for low test scores when standards and tests change.

Ritz has argued that Indiana’s tests should be more diagnostic — giving teachers more information about student skill gaps — and less focused on the bottom line of whether a student passed or failed. She said earlier this month she hoped NCLB changes could make such changes easier.

“It depends a bit on whether NCLB is reauthorized,” Ritz said. “If NCLB changed, our tests could be different. But this is heading in a direction I approve of.”

Ritz and O’Brien said they don’t expect any problems with the waiver renewal. Daniel Altman, spokesman for the education department, said the state thinks a decision could come in late summer or early fall.

“I think all along the board’s sole concern is just making sure the waiver application that was submitted would accurately represent the laws and policies that our legislature has enacted and our state board has supported,” O’Brien said. “We are hopeful we will have a favorable response, but it’s just kind of a wait-and-see at this point.”

School 93 a step closer to possible takeover despite new law's timeline changes

2015-06-03T20:53:42+00:00

A change in state law that could see failing schools taken over by the state two years quicker won’t affect schools that have already earned four or five F grades in a row.

It will still take six years of F grades to face possible takeover, not four, for those schools. They will be the last schools in the state to get that long to try to raise their grades to at least a D. But that doesn’t mean the schools don’t still have serious problems.

Case in point: Indianapolis Public School 93.

A dismal report on School 93 from the Indiana Department of Education to the Indiana State Board of Education raised alarms for some board members who wanted assurances that state and district officials would help the school get back on track.

“I hope there are outreach and other support folks parachuting into these schools to help them,” board member Gordon Hendry said. “The situation is extremely dire.”

When House Bill 1638, signed into law by Gov. Mike Pence last month, changed the timeline for the failing schools, those that already had consecutive F grades got to remain on the six-year timeline. Any school that drops to an F grade after July 1, 2016, could face takeover in just four years if it can’t raise its test scores enough to at least reach a D.

Although the state and district are planning to take steps to improve School 93, takeover is off the table until at least 2017, even if the school is rated an F again in 2015 and 2016.

The overhauled Indiana State Board of Education, with five newly appointed board members taking their seats today, heard the reports on School 93 and five other failing schools. The board, which has struggled through two years of long meetings fueled by tense debates and disagreements with state Superintendent Glenda Ritz, held a smooth, cordial meeting at Purdue University and discussed a series of routine matters.

The School 93 report raised questions about how state takeover and other actions to improve failing schools will be handled in the two years before the new law kicks in.

School 93, education department officials said, needs better leadership, academic programs and communication. The school just this year began implementing Project Restore, a homegrown school turnaround program started by two IPS teachers six years ago.

Project Restore has helped two failing IPS schools quickly earn A grades, but the effort appears stalled at School 93.

The school ranked in the bottom 15 percent of schools in one of the lowest-scoring school districts in the state. Only five of 49 IPS elementary schools that took ISTEP had a lower passing rate than School 93’s 35.7 percent in 2014.

The program’s goal is to improve discipline through consistent enforcement of rules and promote better student learning by doing more testing and review of what’s been taught.

Tammy Laughner, one of the program’s founding teachers, said one challenge was working with the school’s former principal, Amanda Pickrell, who she said didn’t completely embrace the program’s mission. The report says staff members didn’t understand who was in charge — the principal or Project Restore. Department officials also said there were tense relationships between Pickrell and the program’s leaders.

“We’ve gone for six or seven months not doing it the Project Restore way, which has been really frustrating for us,” Laughner said.

Pickrell, a first-year principal, recently resigned. Teresa Brown, the department’s assistant superintendent of school improvement, said the position was filled just last week.

Brown said she wasn’t sure the program’s approach to discipline was having the intended effect — from her team’s observations, it led to more dysfunction, not less.

“That’s resulted in thousands of discipline referrals, and a lot of out-of-class time for kids,” Brown said. “I’m not sure exactly what they are doing when they are out of class.”

The report explored in-depth eight different areas of improvement for the school, including leadership, curriculum, effective teaching and use of time. On five of the eight turnaround areas, the school was rated “ineffective.” The other three areas garnered “needs improvement” ratings.

Brown said education department staff talked about the concerns with Superintendent Lewis Ferebee and other district officials, who said they were aware of the problems and were working to address them. Calls seeking comment from IPS were not returned today.

“There are very significant and serious concerns in that school, as well as from our teams,” Brown said. “And we have shared them very frankly.”

Laughner said, however, that with a new principal and a re-focus on getting student behavior under control, she’s ready to make progress next year.

“We need quiet halls, we need order and we need for teachers to be able to teach all day,” she said. “I just want to look forward, and I could spend a lot of time looking back on what didn’t work, but it’s not going to get me anywhere.”

As Ritz contemplates a run against Pence, how strong is her teacher and parent support?

2015-05-26T18:35:39+00:00

Kavan Horne recognized the woman in a blue suit greeting people in the cafeteria at Pike Township’s Central Elementary School and could tell she was something of a celebrity, but for a moment he couldn’t place Indiana’s state superintendent.

Then it came to him: “Ritz!”

He looked to his wife, Pamela, and others at his table waiting to see third-graders present their career exploration projects.

“Right?” he double-checked.

Today’s visit to Central was part of the regular routine for Glenda Ritz: she stops in on schools two to three days a week and has visited more than 80 of Indiana’s 92 counties in almost two and a half years in office.

But with a possible run for governor on the horizon, these visits also offer a gauge of the strength of her appeal with a core constituency: parents and teachers.

For his part, Horne likes the idea of a Ritz run against Republican Gov. Mike Pence. He thinks it would be good for a woman and an educator to lead the state, and he would especially like to see a 2016 ticket that includes Ritz alongside likely Democratic Party nominee Hillary Clinton running for president.

“Women do everything else now, why not governor?” Horne said. “Why can’t Hillary be president?”

Even if it took a minute for him to remember Ritz’s name, Horne is sure about one thing: she’s under attack from political opponents who have portrayed her unfairly.

“Everything the news puts out is always the bad,” he said. “I know they want to oust her. Where are the positives about what she is doing for the kids?”

A Ritz run for governor has become a real possibility over the last month. Right after the Republican-dominated legislature wrapped up its work in late April, Ritz said she was so frustrated with Pence and his allies that she would give challenging Pence some thought.

Citing unnamed sources, two political news websites last week reported Ritz was close to announcing a run for the Democratic nomination for governor. She declined to say today if she had made up her mind, but she said she was planning an announcement for next week.

“My main focus is on education,” Ritz said. “I feel strongly we need an education governor.”

Glenda Ritz visited Central Elementary School in Pike Township today.

At Central, several parents and teachers seemed to share that sentiment.

Parents Tajuana Fleming and Maquinta Holland, also waiting for the career presentations in the library, admitted they didn’t know who Ritz was but said they liked the idea of the state superintendent stepping up to lead the whole state, not just its schools.

“I think it’s a good idea,” Fleming said. “She’ll know better what the kids need to be better educated.”

Can lightning strike twice?
Ritz’s 2012 victory over then-state Superintendent Tony Bennett is already one of Indiana’s most legendary political upsets. Even so, it’s no slam dunk to assume the enthusiasm that made her the only Democrat holding statewide office and earned her 1.3 million votes — more than Pence got while winning the governor’s race that year — would translate to her own successful run for governor in 2016.

In 2012, Bennett’s brusque style and education changes pushed through the legislature by then-Gov. Mitch Daniels that were unpopular with many teachers might have contributed to Ritz’s electoral success. But she also was widely credited for running a shrewd campaign built heavily on teacher and parent grassroots activists who spread the word about her candidacy to friends and family.

It helped her win 52 percent of the vote even though Bennett outspent her by a margin of more than 5 to 1.

To many Indiana educators, Ritz is something of a rock star.

As she toured Central, reading teacher Madhulika Jain trailed behind looking for a chance to shake Ritz’s hand. Jain said she saw Ritz speak at the Indiana State Reading Association and came away inspired.

Jain even memorized a couple of key lines from Ritz’s speech about getting children to love reading so much they will want to do it just for fun.

“A reader is not a person who can read. It’s a person who reads,” Jain recalled Ritz saying.

A Central Elementary School teacher shows state Superintendent Glenda Ritz how she uses an iPad to give kids extra math practice while they stand in line to use the bathroom.

When it comes to choosing a candidate for governor, Jain said what matters most to her is the high quality of person who is running. On that score, Ritz qualifies, she said.

“I think she would be wonderful,” Jain said.

Jain’s reading teacher colleague, Amanda Foster-Moudy, is already campaigning for change in 2016. She said she has a “Pence Must Go” lawn sign in her yard.

Meeting Ritz in person, she said, was a thrill.

“I just texted my mom and said ‘guess who I just met?’” Foster-Moudy said.

Her mom is also a Pike Township teacher and a Ritz fan.

“I hope the rumors are true,” Foster-Moudy said. “I hope she does run. So many teachers are fired up after the kerfuffle with Pence.”

Judging Ritz’s education leadership

Pence, and his appointees on the Indiana State Board of Education, have been deeply critical of Ritz.

Among other things, they’ve argued that she’s sought to block efforts to hold schools and educators to high standards, pointing to her repeated calls to delay or diminish A-to-F grades for schools and teacher evaluation ratings, all of which mostly are based on student test scores. Her critics also argue she has badly fumbled some of her basic duties, notably an overhaul of ISTEP that dramatically lengthened the test, prompting Pence and the legislature to order it shortened in February.

Ritz’s position is that those complaints are fueled by politics and don’t reflect the more complicated reasons why school ratings and testing have sometimes had a bumpy ride in her tenure.

But school visits give Ritz a chance to highlight accomplishments that she says matter most. In the library with a group of fourth graders at Central, Ritz asked how many had heard about her Hoosier Family of Readers initiative. Most said they had.

State Superintendent Glenda Ritz speaks to fourth graders about reading at Pike Township’s Central Elementary School today.

The program encourages reading in and out of school and has made 5,000 books available online, Ritz said.

“Have a great summer, but make sure you read 20 minutes every day,” she told the students. “I read 20 minutes every day in bed before I go to sleep.”

Many of the school visits, she said, also bring her to schools with low test scores that the state is monitoring through another Ritz initiative: the Indiana Department of Education’s Division of Outreach for School Improvement. The division has placed 13 coordinators who oversee troubled schools in nine regions across the state. The coordinators often join her on visits to failing schools, she said.

Central, however, is not one of them. It’s been quite a success story, in fact.

The school’s ISTEP passing rate made steady gains during the past six years to 73 percent last year, up from just 41 percent passing in 2009. That’s just short of the state average of 74 percent passing both English and math.

The biggest gain came last year: a jump of 14 percentage points from the prior year. That boosted Central’s grade to an A from a C, the first time the school rated higher than C since 2005.

Central parents say those gains say something good about the school, the district and the state.

Fleming, whose family moved here from Mississippi four years ago, believes education in Indiana is clearly superior, but she still had to hunt to find the right school for her two children.

They started out in Indianapolis Public Schools, she said, where teachers told her they were a year behind their peers. But at the end of their first year, Fleming didn’t think enough progress had been made, so she switched to Pike Township schools.

Holland said she also moved her daughter to Central Elementary School from IPS because of similar worries.

“Her school got an F, and I pulled her right out of there,” she said.

But the parents don’t put all the blame on IPS and chafe at lawmakers who fault the schools.

“Indianapolis Public Schools are struggling, but the townships seem to have a little more support,” said Pamela Givens-Horne, Karan Horne’s wife. “I’m concerned about IPS.”

The state, she said, should pay more attention IPS, too.

The 2016-17 state budget, passed last month, could cut up to $17 million in aid from IPS. About half of the poorest districts in Indiana also will get less money, while all of the 25 wealthiest are getting extra aid.

Funding for schools facing the biggest hurdles will be on Givens-Horne’s mind come election time.

“Inner-city schools have not gotten the funding they need,” she said. “They’re not helping enough.”

Schools could earn fewer A’s next year under proposed state board rule changes

2015-05-07T00:12:01+00:00

Schools could have a harder time earning A’s beginning in 2016 if the Indiana State Board of Education approves new A-to-F grading rules Thursday.

The new approach would try to better balance how passing rates on state tests and student improvement from one year to the next factor into accountability letter grades. This measure of student growth has been discussed intensely among board members, state officials and educators, with some districts arguing schools should get credit even if students don’t pass the test, but show strong gains.

Under the revised rules, half the score that figures into A-to-F grades for schools serving children in grades 3 to 8 would be based on how much students improve on their prior scores and half on how many kids pass.

For high schools, a “college- and career-readiness” score and five-year graduation rate would account for 60 percent of the score. Another 20 percent of the A-to-F calculation would be based on test score gains over the prior year and 20 percent on the number of students who pass.

The college- and career-readiness score would be based on several factors: the percent of students who pass Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate tests, a school’s four-year graduation rate, and any professional credentials or college credit students earn before graduation.

The rules previously weighted test passing rates themselves higher than test score growth, with passing rates making up 60 percent of the A-to-F score. But during public comment sessions earlier this year, there was strong opposition to that set-up.

“We received about 218 comments through all the various forums,” state board spokesman Marc Lotter said. “A lot of the comments were taken into consideration and we included them in the final rule. I think the rule reflects the general thought … (people) want student performance and student growth treated equally in the grade model.”

However, projections using last year’s data and guidance from the U.S. Department of Education suggest the new approach could also make it more difficult for schools to earn A’s.

A requirement of the federal No Child Left Behind law would only allow the state to give A grades to schools that can show small groups of students — such as ethnic minorities, English language learners and those in special education programs — meet passing rate and growth goals each year. If a district does not seem to be closing the test score gap between those groups and the rest of the schools, but still scores well on tests, the best it could earn would be a B.

Lotter said this aspect of NCLB is still in effect even though the state received a waiver from some sanctions of the law last year. The law previously asked schools to ensure all students were proficient by 2014, but the waiver gives schools more leeway — they can determine their own guidelines that are “ambitious but achievable,” according to the U.S. Department of Education.

Using data from 2014, the panel found that weighting passing rates and growth evenly, rather than having passing rates count for 60 percent, would have increased A grades and D grades slightly, to 41 percent from 40 percent and to 5 percent from 4 percent, respectively. But B, C and F grades would have stayed the same, at 38 percent, 14 percent and 3 percent.

Although there are minor differences between the 60-40 and 50-50 models compared to each other, the new 50-50 model would have significantly changed this year’s grades calculated by the current model, mostly affecting the top of the scale.

A’s would’ve dropped t0 41 percent from 54 percent, B’s would’ve increased to 38 percent from 20 percent, and C’s, D’s and F’s would’ve also dropped — to 14 percent from 16 percent, 5 percent from 6 percent, and 3 percent from 4 percent, respectively.

State board says no sanctions for 2 F-rated charter schools

2015-03-12T18:52:23+00:00

The Indiana State Board of Education today decided not to sanction two charter schools with repeated F grades after a debate over how to evaluate progress at charter schools that serve mostly struggling students.

Following the Indiana Department of Education’s recommendation, the board chose not to exercise options such as closing the Options Charter School in Noblesville and Hoosier Virtual Academy, an online school, or punishing their sponsor, Ball State University, by cutting the fee it receives for overseeing them.

The department’s evaluators found “good things were happening” at the schools despite the F grades, state Superintendent Glenda Ritz said.

But the decision to forgo sanctions only came after a long debate that ended with two board members still objecting. Board member Gordon Hendry voted against taking no action on both schools. Board member Tony Walker voted no on Hoosier Academy only.

“There should be some measure taken if Ball State wants to continue these two schools,” Hendry said.

The schools argued that their students are so different that they should qualify for an exemption from accountability. Both serve large groups of students in special education and who come to them far behind grade level, Ball State’s charter school director Bob Marra said. Both also must manage many students who transfer in and out of their schools.

For example, Marra said, both take on students who have been expelled from their home school districts, have struggled in traditional schools or have had serious illnesses.

“These schools are not your typical charter schools,” board member David Freitas said. “These schools are dealing with different populations. These are students who have not been successful in a traditional school. Many of these students, if they were not in one of these two charter schools, would be in our prison system.”

Instead of taking action against them, Freitas suggested giving the schools a one-year reprieve and asking Indiana Department of Education officials to explore whether an alternative accountability criteria could be created for schools with large numbers of unusually challenged students.

Board member Andrea Neal said the A-to-F accountability system based largely on test scores that Indiana uses does not fit the two schools.

“The F’s mean nothing as applied to these schools,” Neal said.

Hoosier Academy, a K-12 online school, has been rated an F for four straight years. About 46 percent of its students passed both English and math on ISTEP last year. The state average was 74 percent. The school’s passing rate has fallen in three of the past four years and is down 17 percentage points from 2010.

Options Charter School, serving grades 9 to 12, has been rated an F for five straight years. About 30 percent of its students passed state end-of-course exams required for graduation in English and algebra. That was its highest passing rate in four years. The state average was 78 percent.

Rather than take action against the schools, Hendry recommended an option in state law to sanction Ball State by cutting its management fee to 2 percent of each school’s state aid from 3 percent.

But Marra said some of that fee is spent to pay for services for the schools, such as covering the cost of practice tests to prepare for state exams and for state-required audits.

Instead the board voted to follow Freitas’ plan. It took no action against the schools but required them to be re-evaluated next year, possibly with the alternative criteria the education department will consider establishing.

State board stops short of guiding schools toward more test scores in teacher ratings

2015-02-04T21:53:43+00:00

The Indiana State Board of Education today held off a decision to ask school districts to count test scores and other “objective” measures of teaching as bigger factors in annual teacher ratings.

Board member Gordon Hendry said the board wants to talk with legislators and get public feedback before determining how to guide schools to help them determine what counts as “objective measures” of teaching quality how to meet the standard in state law that requires test results and other measures to “significantly inform” a teacher’s rating.

“The board will not be setting specific numbers today at the meeting,” Hendry said.

A large crowd, including several educators, came to the meeting expecting a vote on a proposal to set minimum and maximum percentages for how much teacher ratings should be driven primarily by student test score gains. The guidelines would have encouraged schools to count test scores for as much as half of the teacher’s rating score.

The board approved other recommendations for teacher evaluation by a 7-4 vote, with state Superintendent Glenda Ritz and board members Cari Whicker, Troy Albert and Andrea Neal voting no. The dissenting board members said they opposed to changes because new tests and new accountability systems in the works right now make it difficult to change how teachers are evaluated. Whicker and Neal are classroom teachers, and Albert is a principal.

“For me it’s just a premature vote,” Neal said. “The assessment situation is just so up in the air, and until that situation resolves itself, I am uncomfortable moving a new teacher evaluation system forward.”

But Hendry said changes must be made sooner.

“The vast majority of educators currently say they are dissatisfied with the system,” he said.

A 2011 law that overhauled teacher evaluation in Indiana left decisions about how to count student test scores in a teacher’s rating up to local school districts. That law required student test score growth to “significantly inform” a teacher’s evaluation score, which was interpreted very differently by different school districts.

“The downside of local control is that what ends up happening is that there is a high degree of variability across the state,” said Jessica Conlon of The New Teacher Project. “Some districts weigh objective measures as low as 5 percent and others as high as 50 percent.”

A list of recommended changes to teacher evaluation processes was brought to the board by a consultant, New York-based The New Teacher Project, resulted from feedback the state got from the U.S. Department of Education as part of a waiver that releases Indiana from some of the sanctions of the federal No Child Left Behind law.

The consultant proposed increased training and communication among teachers and administrators along with suggesting schools count in more tests. But even giving guidance on what percentage of a teacher’s rating should be based on tests could require a change in state law.

Under the original recommendations, districts could break teachers’ evaluations into two big categories: one-half to two-thirds of the rating would be based on observations of their teaching, while the remaining one-half to one-third would be based mostly on student gains on state tests.

If a teacher is in a subject that is not part of the state testing system, then other sorts of test and objective measures such as portfolios of student work could count for as much as 40 percent of their ratings, under the recommendations. School districts would still determine their percentages within those ranges.

Indiana teachers this year saw predominantly positive ratings — more than 97 percent of the state’s teachers who were rated were deemed “highly effective” or “effective,” the top two of four categories. Hardly any were rated “ineffective.”

Daniel Brugioni, a high school English teacher in Lake Ridge schools near Gary, said putting too much emphasis on student test scores misses much of the improvement struggling students make throughout a school year. Brugioni said his supervisors consided the 51 percent of his students that passed the English end-of-course exam last year a “dismal failure,” but 110 of his 129 students began high school reading below a ninth-grade level.

“In any other parameter or any other statistical group, that would be a miracle, and I would be lauded,” Brugioni said.

Teaching cannot be judged primarily on numbers and statistics, said Ryan Russell, assistant superintendent in Warren Township. Poverty and other factors outside of school can affect how children perform on tests, he said. It’s not fair that teachers in high-poverty schools risk lower ratings because their students tend not to score as well on tests.

“Do we really believe — if we move highly effective teachers from a middle class district to a high-poverty one — do we really think the students would perform better?” Russell said. “If we do, let’s just set up a teacher exchange program and that will solve all our problems.”

Whicker said it’s not realistic to believe schools can use objective measures other than state test scores, such as portfolios.

“To grade 120 portfolios for my students across the state is not really realistic,” she said. “Well, we’re back to the ISTEP test, so that’s what practical. So we can talk about objective measures even just to talk about them, but the truth is that’s not the reality. That’s just less time for me to teach.”

State board poised to add more test scores into teacher ratings

2015-02-03T22:13:57+00:00

The Indiana State Board of Education is expected to vote tomorrow on how much student test scores factor into teacher evaluations — for some, it could be as much as 50 percent.

The recommendations come from The New Teacher Project, a consultant brought in by the board to help improve the evaluation system. If the state board approves and the legislature makes accompanying changes to state law, some school districts could be required to include student test score growth as a bigger factor in teacher evaluation scores than they do now.

A 2011 law that overhauled teacher evaluation in Indiana left those decisions up to local school districts. That law required student test score growth to “significantly inform” a teacher’s evaluation score, which was interpreted very differently by different school districts.

The recommendations to the state board vary on what percentage of a teacher’s evaluation score should be based on student test scores. It would depend on what subject is taught. Student scores could be as little as 25 percent of ratings and as much as 50 percent for those teaching tested subjects. Several districts count test scores as less than 25 percent of a teacher’s overall rating.

So far, it has been difficult to compare teacher results across the state because the evaluation systems schools are using vary. Critics of using test scores to determine teacher effectiveness have said the scores are unreliable. For example, factors other than the teacher’s work could affect student scores. Where test scores are used as a major factor in evaluation, it is common to see big swings in ratings — teachers rated at the bottom one year rise to the top the next, while those at the top fall to the bottom at unexpectedly high rates.

The board is also expected to take action on these four issues:

IPS wants approval for its planned “transformation zone:” The state board will consider plans from Indianapolis Public Schools to create a “district-within-a-district” to oversee some of the district’s most struggling schools. The idea is modeled after a similar approach in Evansville that IPS argues could work better than traditional state takeover of failing schools. The IPS transformation zone is eventually expected to include George Washington, John Marshall and Broad Ripple high schools as well middle and elementary schools that feed into those high schools.

The district might have a plan for Arlington High School: IPS regained control of Arlington in December, the first district to get back control over a failing school that was taken over by the state. IPS officials will present a plan for board approval, but details are not clear. Previously, IPS has said they might merge Arlington and John Marshall high schools or allow an outside group to independently manage the school. Merging was unpopular at a community meeting, and Superintendent Lewis Ferebee said the district would consider other options.

IPS wants the board’s blessing for its plan to jointly oversee Donnan Middle School: IPS and representatives from Florida-based Charter Schools USA will ask the board to approve a partnership between the two that would create a K-8 school in Donnan that CSUSA would manage. Officials from the charter school organization have said in the past students would do better if they started in the school when they were younger. IPS and CSUSA would recruit 300 students each to fill grades K-6 under the plan. The new K-8 school would open this fall.

There could be more changes to A-F grading: The state board is expected to change the way schools can appeal their letter grades. Currently, schools appeal directly to the Indiana Department of Education, but under a proposal schools would instead petition the board and then send a copy of that petition to the Indiana Department of Education — effectively cutting them out of the decision-making process over which schools are considered for appeals.

The board also has plans to discuss changes to science standards: The board will hear a presentation of proposed new science standards. Science has not been part of the past debate over Common Core and new English and math standards for Indiana. But, like Common Core, the science standards Indiana is considering are also shared by other states: 14 have adopted it so far. If the board approves them Wednesday, the proposed standards begin a nearly year-long process of review and feedback from Indiana educators, board members and the public before final approval is expected in January 2016.

New A-to-F grading system clears hurdle after stumble

2015-01-07T21:21:48+00:00

For a few minutes this morning, the latest dispute between state Superintendent Glenda Ritz’s Indiana Department of Education and Gov. Mike Pence’s Center for Education and Career Innovation looked like it might temporarily derail a process that was expected to finish off a year-old effort to overhaul Indiana’s much-maligned A-to-F school grading system.

A 5-5 tie vote by the Indiana State Board of Education (the 11-member group was one short as board member Dan Elsener was absent) meant the education department’s proposal for how to grade schools with students both in high school and in lower grades was rejected.

But the board quickly reconsidered and, ultimately, it voted again. The second time, board members approved the plan.

In other words, the distrust and tension that has plagued board meetings for more than a year, and which helped prompt Pence to announce in December a plan to dissolve CECI by next month, was again evident. Some board members who initially voted no said it was only to protest what they said was poor communication from Ritz’s team.

At one point, Assistant State Superintendent Danielle Shockey and CECI’s chief assessment officer, Cynthia Roach, debated about what day information was shared between the two departments in a whispered conversation behind the podium that nevertheless was noticeable for its finger-pointing intensity.

But ultimately, the board gave its blessing to the rules, which are aimed at reworking the way student test score growth is factored into school grades. In simulations using current test scores, the proposed changes would have helped more schools earn higher grades. But at times the rule changes were intensely debated by a panel of state officials and educators who worked on the plan beginning in 2013.

Today’s approval mattered because it launched a months-long process by which the department will pubish the proposed rules and invite feedback, including public input meetings. The board’s goal is to have the new rules in place so they can be used for the grades that come out next fall based on the current school year. That might not have happened with even a month’s delay.

Ritz said the proposal is a clear improvement over the current system. School report cards, she said, will show separate results describing how many students passed and the gains students made over the prior year.

“The most exciting part to me is we are going to see growth and proficiency separately,” she said. “They’re going to know what it is they need to do. If a school has low performance and they have good growth, then they’re headed in a good direction and know they need to do more of what they are doing to bring up their achievement level.”

Today’s debate began over a very specific question: how should schools with students both in high school and in lower grades calculate measures such as graduation rate and college readiness into their grades?

Ritz’s team recommended those factors count based on the size of the group of students within a school who are in high school — those who are preparing to move on to college and jobs.

The other option was to count those factors as a flat 60 percent of the final grade for all such combined schools.

The issue was touchy because oddly configured schools have caused confusion and disagreements over how their grades are calculated in the past, going all the way back to a blazing 2012 controversy about how Ritz’s predecessor, Tony Bennett, assigned a grade for a charter school that critics said amounted to favoritism.

Several board members balked that they had not been presented the proposal sooner and said that’s why they were voting no.

But after the tie vote, board members realized they had a problem: a delay could jeopardize a tight timeline to complete the rule-making process in time to use the new system next year. They quickly decided to revisit the issue, calling forward staff from the department and CECI to explain their viewpoints on the proposal in detail.

Satisfied, a majority of the board voted to reconsider and then pass the plan, which sent the A-to-F grading proposal on for public feedback. A final vote could come this summer.

Nearly all Indiana educators rated effective again

2015-01-05T21:37:50+00:00

In the second year of what was intended to be a tough new system of evaluating educators, the results were the same: hardly any were rated ineffective and nearly all were certified as doing their jobs effectively.

Less than 0.5 percent of educators were rated “ineffective” during the 2013-14 school year, which could place them at risk of being fired, according to data posted on the Indiana Department of Education website in advance of a presentation at Wednesday’s Indiana State Board of Education meeting.

That’s about the same percentage as the prior year.

A slightly greater share of educators — about 2 percent— were rated in the second lowest of four categories, called “improvement necessary.” The percentage of educators in the top category rated “highly effective,” dropped to 26 percent from 35 percent, but nearly all of those who fell were rated in the next highest category, or “effective.”

The ratings are based on an evaluation system put in place during the past three years that was expected to make it harder for teachers to earn top scores.

It hasn’t, and that could lead the Indiana State Board of Education to ask districts to count student test scores as a bigger factor in the evaluation system in the future.

The overhaul was intended to formalize a process that was hit-and-miss in the past: some teachers were evaluated as infrequently as every three years, sometimes based on a single classroom visit from the principal. In most cases, those evaluations did not affect educator raises, and teachers were rarely fired for poor performance.

In most districts, the new system includes several observations and specially trained evaluators reporting strengths and weaknesses on a variety of skills. The 2013-14 data includes more school districts than last year and, for the first time, charter schools. The law’s implementation schedule left out charters and districts still under old labor contracts in the first year.

State Superintendent Glenda Ritz has advocated for improved teacher evaluation systems, but differed with Republican leaders and some of her fellow state board members about the details. In particular, Ritz favors more flexibility for local school districts to devise their own systems, including allowing local decisions about how much to factor in student test scores.

But so far the new system has produced little change.

An Indiana Department of Education study of a sample of school districts conducted under Ritz’s predecessor, Tony Bennett, prior to the 2011 change in state law, showed very similar results were produced by the old system: 99 percent of educators were rated effective.

Indiana’s law applies to anyone who carries a state certificate, which includes counselors, principals, superintendents and others besides teachers.

Changes are in the works, however. Claire Fiddian-Green, co-director of Gov. Mike Pence’s Center for Education and Career Innovation, said the state board wants to clarify the rules. The board soon will share best practices and new guidelines that Fiddian-Green hopes will make the system work better.

She cited the number of F schools — about 4 percent of schools in Indiana last year — as out of step with less than 1 percent of teachers rated ineffective.

“I do think that calls into mind whether the models, especially the local models, are being implemented with fidelity when it comes to the law,” she said

Unlike other states, Indiana gives local school districts tremendous flexibility to develop their own systems to judge performance. While districts must ultimately assign each educator a 1 to 4 rating, how they get there varies widely. Because of those variations, it can be hard to determine how well school districts follow the state evaluation law.

For example, state law says student gains should be a “significant” factor in an educator’s rating, but it leaves it to schools to figure out how much weight that translates to. Fiddian-Green said the clarifications, set to come before the state board in February, could set a range of percentages for just how much student test scores should factor in.

“It would be too far for me to say that there was a question of the validity of the data,” Fiddian-Green said. “I think it’s more that this is a new system and we’re working out the kinks.”

But Teresa Meredith, president of the Indiana State Teacher Association, said the results are encouraging.

“I think statewide, by and large most of our teachers in the profession are doing a really good job,” she said.

For the first time, the state released separate totals for teachers, superintendents and principals. Democratic House leader Rep. Scott Pelath, D-Michigan City, said looking at the performance of administrators as well as teachers is a good idea.

“One thing we’re starting to hear is that we shouldn’t be blaming our teachers for everything we perceive as wrong with education,” Pelath said. “And I’m starting to hear that come from my friends across the aisle.”

Those results showed superintendents got the best ratings of all, with 41 percent rated highly effective and just 0.22 ineffective. Two-thirds of all superintendents were rated in the top two categories.

Teachers had fewer in the top category (35 percent) but more rated in the top two categories (89 percent) and 0.34 rated ineffective.

Principals had the most rated ineffective, but the percentage was still tiny, 0.58 percent, and 86 percent of principals were rated in the top two categories.

Under Indiana’s law, effectiveness is rated on a 1 to 4 scale. Factors that go into the ratings of teachers include observations by administrators or other trained evaluators, student test score gains and other factors that vary by school or depend on the subject taught.

Sanctions for those rated in the lowest categories are serious. An ineffective rating, a 1 on the scale, can be cause to fire an educator immediately. Those who are rated in the next lowest category, a 2 or in need of improvement, can be dismissed if they fail to raise their ratings to effective (3) or highly effective (4) after two years.

Included with the latest results are two additional sets of data: one looking at the connection between educator quality and school A to F ratings and another looking at the possible effects of educator quality on teacher retention.

There appears to be a strong connection between educator effectiveness and school grades. Schools with A grades have far more highly effective teachers on average (more than 40 percent) than schools rated F (about 15 percent).

The reverse is also true. Although the numbers are small, the percentage of educators rated in the two lowest categories was more than five times high at F schools (more than 5 percent) than at A schools (1 percent).

A-rated schools were far more likely to keep their teachers employed in the same school or school district (85 percent retained) than F rated schools (64 percent).

Meredith pointed out that in charter schools rated D or F, more teachers were rated ineffective than in traditional school districts rated D or F. In traditional schools rated D or F, ineffective teachers made up less than 1 percent of all teachers. But in charter schools rated D or F more than 10 percent of teachers were rated ineffective.

“Why would you keep someone who’s doing that poorly of a job?” Meredith said. “As a parent, if there was an ineffective person in a school system and they are listed on that chart, I would be upset … to see charter schools be so high is a little frightening to me.”

Meredith said she was also concerned that evaluations could be increasingly based more on student test scores. Those scores, she said, are a snapshot of a student’s performance at one point in time, whereas teacher evaluation data now is mostly based on an entire year of observation in addition to more objective measures.

Tosha Salyers, spokesperson with the Institute for Quality Education, said it’s more fair that teachers are being evaluated with objective data. The Institute advocates for changes in education policy, favoring ideas like greater scrutiny on educator performance and wider school choice offerings.

Salyers said when she was a teacher, performance evaluations were too subjective and did little to help her improve.

“We think there’s still work to be done,” Salyers said. “The legislation is fairly new, and we think that the more schools become comfortable with it that the results will do what they should do: inform teachers’ practice. What we hope is that it’s a tool being used as not a punitive thing, but as a way to help teachers grow.”

Indiana sees a big jump in A-rated schools

2014-11-05T17:53:41+00:00

More than half of Indiana’s schools were rated an A this year, a majority for the first time this decade.

Data released today by the Indiana Department of Education, and approved with changes by the Indiana State Board of Education after a month-long delay, showed 53 percent of more than 2,100 graded schools were rated A — a jump of eight percentage points over last year. Fewer schools earned a D or F.

The question is what drove the improvements?

(Find your school’s grade here.)

Glenda Ritz’s spokesman said she should get a big chunk of credit for instituting a statewide system of outreach coordinators to support local efforts to improve low-scoring schools.

“We think these numbers show the work they have been doing has been obviously significant and we are coming back with a good result in the very first year,” Daniel Altman said.

But Ritz’s critics think just the opposite: that some of the very policies she campaigned against when she defeated Tony Bennett in 2012 have pushed schools to get serious about helping students pass tests so they can avoid the consequences of failure.

“My theory as to why the grades are up is very simple: teachers, superintendents and principals are responding to the environment of transparency, accountability and choice,” said Robert Enlow, CEO of the Friedman Foundation, which advocates nationally for private school tuition vouchers and charter schools.

The state board adjusted grades for several schools, so the percentages of schools in each grading category will change slightly. But the overall picture held steady, showing better grades overall for the state.

While hailing the hard work of teachers and students, Indiana State Teachers Association President Teresa Meredith rejected the validity of grading schools.

“It’s not a good system,” she said. “Letter grades are not a good way to judge schools, period. Nobody likes an F. No teacher gets excitement from giving an F. Nobody wants their building to be labeled an F. It’s the wrong message to students you are trying to build up.”

But Tosha Salyers, spokeswoman for the Institute for Quality Education, said its the averse reaction to low grades that encourages schools to push harder to improve. Understandable letter grades, she said, combined with new, tough consequences like state takeover for persistently failing schools, have propelled Indiana students to do better, and not just on tests. Measures like graduation rates and the number of students taking advanced classes are up, too.

“The intent of school accountability policy is to set strong metrics for performance at the state level and then get out of the way,” she said. “With the proper policies in place, local administrators and teachers will rise to high expectations.”

This is the last year for the system of grading schools that was put in place in 2012. The Indiana legislature mandated changes to the system earlier this year. State board members are scheduled to discuss revisions to the system that aims to refine how student test score gains are calculated into the grades later today.

IPS sees gains

Indianapolis Public Schools was an example of a district that saw a shift toward better grades. The district has been among the state’s most troubled with a majority of schools earning a D or F.

That’s still true: 54 percent of IPS schools rated a D or F this year, according to the data released today. But that was down from 59 percent last year.

At the lowest end of the scale, IPS saw the most progress. While more than a quarter of the district’s schools rated an F (28 percent), that’s a big improvement from more than a third of schools last year (36 percent), the data showed.

Meanwhile, IPS saw 13 schools earn A grades, three more than last year. Overall 30 percent of the district’s 75 rated schools earned an A or B, up from 25 percent last year, according to the data.

“We’re pleased to learn a third of our schools improved by one or more letter grades compared to the 2013 report card,” Superintendent Lewis Ferebee said in a statement. “We anticipate continued success at these schools and look forward to higher grades as they continue to thrive.”

The data showed the district’s big winners were School 34 (F to B), School 58 (F to C) and Key Learning Community High School (F to C). Also, going D to B were School 46, School 70 and School 96. New IPS A schools include School 54, School 57, School 109, Cold Spring School and School 99. Both Cold Spring School and School 99 went from C to A.

Charter schools up, too

Statewide, the group 66 charter schools that earned ratings saw a big 10-point jump in the percent of schools with A and B grades and fewer with a D or F, according to the data release.

Taken together, the state’s charter schools had combined performance was comparable to a large urban school district. In fact, the data showed an identical percentage of charter schools and IPS schools earned an A or B: 30 percent. Charters did slightly better at avoiding a D or F: less than half (49 percent) fell in those categories while IPS had 54 percent rated that low.

One factor helping charter schools look better: low-scoring charter schools have been closing.

Ball State University, for example, did not renew charters for 11 schools the past two years, which led five with low test scores to close down. Two converted to private schools and one merged into a sister charter school. Three others remain open after finding new sponsors.

About half as many charter schools sponsored by Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard have also closed, moved toward consolidation or found new management.

Those closures removed several low scoring schools from the state’s graded charter schools.

Half of Ballard’s charter schools — excluding schools that serve special student populations, such as dropouts or those in special education — earned an A or B. Another 40 percent were rated D or F, fewer than the statewide charter school percentage or IPS’s percentage.

The schools that are low performing are being held accountable at the same time we are expanding and replicating high performing schools,” Deputy Mayor Jason Kloth said.

Few low rated in townships

In Marion County, townships had the best performing public schools.

Just 13 percent of of township schools are rated a D or F, the data showed, including just one F-rated school this year: Wayne Township’s Achieve Virtual Education Academy. Last year, six township schools were rated F.

But townships saw a big jump in A rated schools to 45 percent, up from 27 percent last year. Overall two-thirds of Indianapolis township schools were rated an A or B, up from just over half last year.

State panel recommends changes on A to F grades for schools

2014-10-01T22:55:54+00:00

A panel of educators, policymakers and business leaders recommended Wednesday that Indiana change how it evaluates school test score growth in a way that might result in fewer A grades, but also fewer D’s and F’s.

The recommendations came from a 17-member committee appointed by State Superintendent Glenda Ritz, Gov. Mike Pence and legislative leaders. The group’s proposal, which will be considered by the Indiana State Board of Education on Oct. 15, likely wouldn’t go into effect before 2016.

Under the plan, student test score growth would be gauged by looking at how students ranked compared to their peers on past tests to establish a baseline. Then students would be expected to improve their scores each year.

“We had to have a starting point,” Ritz said. “We used all that information to determine the baseline of where the new model will begin.”

But the proposal, which passed the committee 10-4, drew objections from a few dissenters who felt growth should instead be measured against the passing score rather than peer scores. In that scenario, students who had not passed could earn bonus points based on how much growth they made toward a passing score. Those who passed could get bonuses for how much they exceeded the passing score.

“Where is the measure of proficiency in the growth model?” said Indiana Chamber of Commerce Vice President Derek Redelman, a committee member who voted against the proposal. “It’s not there.”

Claire Fiddian-Green, co-director of Pence’s Center for Education and Career Innovation, said that method proved to offer little reward for growth because schools that scored well tended on that sort of growth also tended to have high passing rates. The proposed method, she said, was a better measure of growth.

Still, Fiddian-Green voted against the plan for other reasons: she wanted an outside review of the system first and more specifics for how student scores would be judged over time.

Under the current rules, where test score growth is treated as a bonus, about 44 percent of schools were rated A last year while 18 percent were D or F. Under the proposal, which rewards schools equally for the percent who passed ISTEP and for the percent who earned growth bonuses, the Indiana Department of Education estimated 33 percent of schools would have earned an A last year while 7 percent would have received a D or F.

Before 2012, Indiana’s grading system was heavily based on the percent of students who passed. Critics said that unfairly hurt schools with large numbers of children who came to them far below grade level, often because of high poverty and fewer learning opportunities available before kindergarten or first grade.

Even when those schools got kids to make major gains on tests they sometimes still fell short of earning a passing score. By ignoring growth, some schools that were making great strides earned the same grades as schools where few kids were making much test progress.

So then-Superintendent Tony Bennett worked to revise the A to F system to add a growth measure to give schools extra credit when students made gains on state tests, even if they were far above or far below a passing score.

But Bennett’s system was almost universally disliked. When hearings were held in 2012 after he proposed it, a parade of speakers from across the political and educational spectrum testified against Bennett’s plan.

The major complaints surrounded the use of a growth measure that was based on a similar model used in Colorado. It judged student growth by comparing each student with peers that met a similar demographic profile. Some opponents argued the measure was so difficult to understand schools could not even calculate their own scores. Others argued it was an unreliable gauge of student academic improvement.

Last year, lawmakers ordered an overhaul of the growth measure so it rewards growth toward a standard, such as a passing score or advanced score, instead of growth as compared to other students. The A to F panel is one of the legislatively-ordered steps to a new system.

If the state board gives its blessing, that would start a year-long process of formal rule-making, including public input on the plan, before it could be put into practice.

Indiana celebrates NCLB waiver win, but questions remain

2014-08-28T23:00:57+00:00

Four months after Indiana was stunned to be put on a form of probation by the U.S. Department of Education, there was widespread relief today when federal officials approved the state’s request to extend a waiver that releases schools from possible sanctions under No Child Left Behind.

But there was also a sense that Indiana wasn’t entirely out of the woods yet. The extension is for less than a year — through June 30 — and federal officials still have questions, especially about the way the state evaluates its teachers and principals.

Gov. Mike Pence and state Superintendent Glenda Ritz both treated the news as a victory.

“The approval of Indiana’s waiver request is great news for Indiana students and schools,” Pence said in a statement. “It gives us the ability to maintain local control of how federal education dollars are invested and to maintain the use of Indiana’s A-F school accountability system. The waiver also allows school districts and teachers to educate students in a manner determined by Hoosier educators and families in their local communities.”

Ritz said the flexibility means schools can keep federal aid they now spend on learning supports for kids, such as extra help for those who fall behind and after school programs. NCLB requires the money to be spent on after school programs from outside vendors, but President Obama’s administration relaxed that rule.

“Now they can use dollars in best way to meet students needs with personnel who really know children,” Ritz said at a news conference Thursday.

As the school year goes along, Ritz’s team will work on a proposal for a longer extension. Indiana could seek up to a four-year renewal.

Although Ritz said the U.S. education department removed all conditions from Indiana’s waiver, it still expects the state to work with districts on improving the teacher and principal evaluation system.

“Teacher evaluations, school accountability, and interventions for struggling schools are top priorities in our state, and maintaining our waiver will allow us to continue improvement in each of these areas,” Betsy Wiley, president and CEO of Hoosiers for Quality Education, which lobbies for educational change, said in a statement. “Now it is time for Superintendent Ritz to turn her attention to finalizing assessments for the 2014-2015 school year.”

It’s still undecided how exactly the teacher evaluation system might change. Teresa Meredith, president of the Indiana State Teachers Association, thinks it’s still early to assess a system that was only just put in place, and teachers are still figuring out the “full impact of what that meant.”

“Personally, I would like to see less emphasis on standardized testing in the evaluation, and more support in improving the system,” Meredith said. “What is it that the state is doing to support school systems and teachers who need improvement and additional training?”

Meredith said even good teachers can struggle in certain areas, such as classroom management, and that she’d like the state to look at that and find more and better ways to support professional learning and development, rather than punish teachers when their students have poor test scores.

The sentiment is echoed by Indianapolis Public School Board candidate Josh Owens, who thinks Pence and state officials should partner with ISTA and seek a delay of evaluations tied to student performance for a year to accommodate the quick turnaround teachers had to change curriculum in response to Indiana’s new academic standards. The state replaced its plan to use widely adopted Common Core standards in April, instead approving new Indiana-created standards for what is taught in every grade.

ISTA called last week for such a delay.

“Those of us advocating for reforms want to reward teachers for excellent classroom instruction, improving student results, and agreeing to teach in our most challenging schools,” Owens said in a letter. “Partnering with the ISTA on this reasonable request in the interim may provide the perfect opportunity to build better partnerships with our teachers as we look to create an accountability system that achieves real, sustainable results while supporting our teachers at the same time.”

Can today’s goodwill possibly also translate to friendlier relations to replace the tension among Ritz, Pence, the state board, education groups and others?

“I really hope this lets (Ritz’s) critics and (the Center for Education and Career Innovation) and the governor know that she’s got this,” Meredith said. “We need to trust her to go forward and work on her students’ behalf.”

Indiana dodges NCLB waiver bullet, for now

2014-08-28T19:02:10+00:00

Indiana today got a one-year reprieve from possible penalties from the U.S. Department of Education.

Those penalties, including the loss of control over more than $200 million in federal aid that goes to local schools, wouldn’t happen before June 30 of 2015.

“Its a good thing for students and schools,” said Claire Fiddian-Green, the co-director of Gov. Mike Pence’s Center for Education and Career Innovation.

State superintendent Glenda Ritz also hailed the decision, saying it signaled her department’s work met fedral standards and put Indiana clearly on a path toward a long-term renewal of the waiver.

“Today’s decision by the U.S. Department of Education validates the work that we done,” she said.

Losing the waiver, releasing it from some of the rules of the federal No Child Left Behind Law, would have meant a share of money that now funds programs, pays salaries and otherwise supports efforts to raise student test scores could be taken away to be used for other services, such as hiring outside tutors to work with low-scoring children. Schools would likely have had to cut back on some services.

No Child Left Behind, signed in 2002, required states to establish testing and accountability systems to raise all children to proficiency in math and English. But test score growth expectations in NCLB that many states complained were unrealistically tough led President Obama’s administration to permit “waivers” from some of those rules.

Indiana was approved to use its own A to F school grading system for accountability under the waiver and pledged to adopt the Common Core academic standards to meet a requirement to follow standards that would produce graduates who are “college- and career-ready.”

In May the federal education department raised concerns that Indiana was not staying true to the 2012 waiver agreement. State officials now have 10 more months to convince federal officials they are in line with the promises they made. If they can, they could get the waiver extended for more multiple years.

One issue the U.S. Department of Education wants more explanation about is how thoroughly Indiana’s teacher and principal evaluation system measures and rewards improved student test scores and whether it ensures all schools meet its standards.
Some advocates who pushed for tougher evaluation when a law overhauling teacher evaluation passed in 2011 were disappointed this year when nearly all teachers were rated effective, just as they generally were in the past. The first results of the new system in May showed 97 percent of teachers statewide were rated effective or highly effective. Critics said it was implausible that so few teachers were ineffective.

Two factors may have helped those numbers stay high. Ritz allowed school districts last year to measure teachers less on their students’ test results and more on observations and other factors, citing online testing problems in 2013. Also, there was an exception to the 2011 law that allowed some school districts to delay using the new evaluation system until their union contracts expired. About 40 of Indiana’s 290 districts are still operating under old contracts and following their prior systems.

The extension means the state was not raised to “high risk” status, as some feared it might be, suggesting federal officials have higher confidence that their concerns can be resolved here than they do in four states that have been placed on that highest level of alert.

One state, Washington, saw its waiver revoked earlier this year.

Indiana’s waiver concerns reignited an ongoing debate between state Superintendent Glenda Ritz and Republican elected leaders, especially Pence, over who controls, and should answer for, Indiana’s education policy decisions.

In May, Assistant U.S. Secretary of Education Deb Delisle sent a letter to Ritz giving her 60 days to explain how Indiana would resolve concerns by federal officials on three fronts: whether its new standards and new tests were in line with federal expectations, whether Ritz was adequately monitoring low-scoring schools and whether teacher evaluation was working properly.

It appears the first two questions are resolved, and while there are questions about teacher evaluation, no conditions were placed on the waiver.

The Indiana State Board of Education, an 11-member body chaired by Ritz but otherwise appointed by Republican governors, in July passed a resolution critical of the Indiana education department’s thoroughness and accuracy in crafting the waiver. Ritz has said she feels those complaints, along with a critique of the Indiana Department of Education’s waiver extension proposal submitted to federal officials by CECI, were unfounded and put Indiana’s chances of keeping the waiver in jeopardy.

The state board is expected to discuss next steps when it meets on Wednesday.

Christel House rebounds after controversy and test score drop

2014-08-05T17:15:23+00:00

Christel House Academy South charter school, which was at the center of accusations former state Superintendent Tony Bennett changed Indiana’s A to F grading system to raise its grade, saw a strong rebound in its ISTEP scores in 2013-14.

After a long string of A’s, Christel House South fell to an F in 2012-13 after test scores made a dramatic drop and blamed problems with online testing as the reason. This year, it recovered nearly all of its lost ground by gaining 9 points to 71 percent passing. The school’s passing rate had been more than 70 percent the prior three years.

Deputy Mayor Jason Kloth said he was pleased to see the school return to the sort of passing rate that was routine in the past. Mayor Greg Ballard is the school’s sponsor, with responsibility for monitoring its performance and the power to decide if its charter is renewed to keep operating.

“We were impressed by Christel House’s acknowledgement of having some challenges last year and the corrections they made this year,” Kloth said. “We’re not surprised, under strong consistent leadership, to see their results improve.”

A scandal erupted in 2013 when emails shared with reporters by staff members working for Bennett’s successor, Glenda Ritz, showed Bennett and his lieutenants worried that Christel House might receive a C while they were at work on revising the state’s A to F school accountability system in 2012.

Bennett’s team made changes in the grading formula that resulted in the school maintaining its A for 2011-12. The school’s founder, philanthropist Christel DeHaan, had contributed to Bennett’s political campaign in the past.

A legislative investigation later deemed Bennett’s A to F changes “plausible” and the state’s ethics commission declined to bring charges against him based on the Christel House concerns. In July he paid a fine for a campaign law violation instead.

When Christel House was given an F for 2012-13 based on the test score drop some critics saw it is more evidence the school had received special treatment under Bennett. The school’s leaders, however, argued their scores were depressed by online testing glitches that interrupted ISTEP for thousands of students across the state and a large number at the school. The school appealed the F grade but was denied.

This year, their scores jumped back up.

“The fact that we had kids who couldn’t complete the test, it obviously had an impact,” said Carey Dahncke, the school’s former principal who is now CEO of a growing stable of Chirstel House charter schools. “We are disappointed that our appeal wasn’t granted. In our head, this makes it a little bit better.”

Kloth stopped short of agreeing with Dahncke that last year’s drop was entirely driven by the testing problems, saying there was never a definitive answer about what went wrong. The mayor’s staff expected a rebound either way.

“We look at school performance over the long term,” Kloth said. “They’ve gotten very good results consistently within (grades) K to 8. They have strong leadership and governance. We were confident the results they had were going to improve.”

Dahncke said the school made few major changes this year, as school leaders were confident they would be proven right that last year’s result was a glitch-driven aberration.

But one change the school did make was it administered ISTEP entirely on paper this year, taking a pass on the online option.

Christel House South’s focus now, Dahncke said, is on helping its students who still did not pass ISTEP to improve and putting the testing problems behind them.

“That’s water under the bridge,” he said. “You can’t go back an change it. Our supporters understood and continue to believe in the work we do. We think this verifies that.”

Tindley says it can't afford to keep running Arlington High School

2014-07-10T04:56:52+00:00

Tindley Schools, the charter school group that has run Arlington High School in Indianapolis for two years under a contract with the state, said today it wants out.

The leader of the nonprofit group that also operates a network of Indianapolis charter schools told the Indiana State Board of Education Tindley simply couldn’t afford to keep managing the school unless it received an additional $2.4 million in aid. Otherwise it would have to subsidize the cost of running the takeover school with money earmarked for the charter schools it runs.

Tindley CEO Marcus Robinson said he’s not willing to do that.

“We made a promise before we started,” he said. “Tindley is a small non-profit. It is not some big corporate conglomerate or an entity that can afford to take $1 million or a half million dollars to prop up an operation. Does the charter school need to carry the turnaround school? The answer to that is that cannot be.”

After the state board balked at Tindley’s request to add more money for Arlington, Robinson instead proposed a year-long transition to hand the school back to Indianapolis Public Schools.

If not, Robinson said, he would exercise an option to end Tindley’s contract within 60 days.

“There is no way I put my team in that building without some clarity about what happens after this year,” he said.

State board members, appearing caught off guard, ultimately decided to establish a task force with representatives of Tindley, IPS, Mayor Greg Ballard’s office, Gov. Mike Pence’s Center for Education and Career Innovation and the Indiana Department of Education to work on a “transition plan” for Arlington.

“You can’t hold the young people you committed to serve hostage,” a frustrated state board member Dan Elsener said during the debate.

Ritz asked that the committee meet and complete a plan in a short nine-day window by July 18.

Arlington is one of five Indiana schools — four in Indianapolis and one in Gary — that were taken over by the state after six straight years of F grades in 2011.

Since the takeover, all of the schools have remained among the worst performers on state tests and none has risen above an F. Arlington’s modest test score gains, however, were the biggest of the group.

But funding has been a problem from the start. Under former Superintendent Eugene White, IPS pledged to compete with the takeover schools by aggressively recruiting their students to other IPS schools. It worked. After the takeovers, a fraction of the enrollment remained at the schools.

Because state funding is heavily based on enrollment count, the takeover groups faced the danger of far less money to operate the schools than they anticipated. In fact, when the state board at Bennett’s urging funded the takeovers at the same amount as the prior year to start, IPS sued and won.

Robinson said federal school improvement grants were a way to fill the gap, describing the expectation that the takeover schools would continue receiving them as “an enticement from prior administration to get groups to take over these schools.”

But the grants are not guaranteed. A similar dynamic played out last summer, when Tindley said it would invoke the out clause in its contract if the state education department, which was late issuing grant notifications, did not award the school one of them.

After it won the grant, which is administered by the state through a competitive process, Tindley was satisfied.

This year, Tindley’s grant will be less than the $1.3 million it received lass year.

That and other factors mean “the operational overhead outstrips revenue generated by students assigned to the school,” the letter states.

Since then, Robinson said he had discussions with IPS about ways the two groups might work together that he was hopeful would lead to “creative solutions” that might relieve some of the financial pressure on Tindley.

Even so, Robinson was counting on relief in the form of extra money from the state in response to his letter. But board members said the only way to give Arlington more was to take money from other schools that would receive the grants. The state board doesn’t have the leeway to assign other funds to the school.

When the board voted down Tindley’s request, Robinson shifted tone immediately, saying instead he wanted transition the school back to IPS for the 2015-16 school year.

Board member Sarah O’Brien cautioned that she wasn’t sure returning the school to IPS was the best option, or that a decision to move in that direction should be made hastily. Other options for a school in state takeover that the board could choose include merging it with a higher scoring school, closing it or turning it into a charter school.

She and others also noted that IPS officials were not present and Tindley had no formal agreement with the district.

“My hesitation is we are being asked to vote for a partnership that may or may not exist,” she said.

The task force is charged with figuring that out.

The operator of three other former IPS schools in state takeover — Donnan middle school and Howe and Manual high schools — said there is no danger it would walk away from the schools.

“CSUSA remains fully committed to educating our students in Indianapolis and the actions and discussions at today’s State Board of Education meeting don’t change that,” the Florida-based company said in a statement.

Politico: Indiana Inspector General will find Bennett broke state law

2014-07-10T02:04:38+00:00

Indiana Inspector General David Thomas has found former state Superintendent Tony Bennett broke state law in 2012 by using his public office to coordinate his unsuccessful re-election campaign against Glenda Ritz, according to the website Politico.

Politico reported today that it had obtained a copy of a report from Thomas due out Thursday that says Bennett has agreed to pay a $5,000 fine as part of a settlement for violating state ethics rules based on information first reported by the Associated Press last year. (The full report is posted on an area of its website that requires a subscription.) Among the allegations reported at the time were that his public office staff kept campaign fundraising information on state computers and had email conversations about the campaign.

Politico reports, however, that Thomas did not find any evidence that changes to the state A to F school grading formula that benefited Christel House Academy were done for political reasons. A previous review commissioned by Republican legislative leaders found Bennett’s reasons for making the change were plausible and were evenly applied to other schools with the same attributes as Christel House. Christel DeHaan, the founder of the school, contributed to Bennett’s political campaign in the past.

The state ethics commission will hear Bennett’s case at 10 a.m. Thursday.

Proposal to rewrite rules for Ritz, state board draws objections

2014-07-07T19:47:16+00:00

A proposal to again change the rules for how the Indiana State Board of Education conducts its meetings has brought renewed charges from state Superintendent Glenda Ritz’s supporters that it is a thinly veiled effort to limit her power.

“The board will propose dramatic new board procedures through approving a resolution that will form a one-time, ad hoc committee that will approve the new measures intended to cut into the superintendent’s traditional role as chair,” states a July 4 post on the Indiana State Teachers Association blog.

ISTA is calling for teachers to contact state board members and attend Wednesday’s state board meeting to protest the move.

But state board member Brad Oliver, who has clashed with Ritz over some of her decisions to overrule motions by her fellow board members, said the proposal does not make any changes to Ritz’s legal authority as state superintendent.

“It’s very clear the state board is a policy-setting body,” Oliver said. “She is the chair, but there is nothing that stipulates any special powers for the chair to control the agenda or interpret how the meeting unfolds.”

Ritz’s office did not respond to requests for comment.

A resolution on the board’s agenda for Wednesday would create a subcommittee to consider a proposal that would shift authority for determining when and where the board meets from Ritz to the board’s staff and allow board members to appeal any ruling Ritz makes during the meeting.

Two lawyers at the June 23 meeting disagreed over whether Ritz’s decision to overrule a motion Oliver offered was proper, he noted. That means the board’s rules need to be more clear, he said.

“There cannot be any lack of clarity,” Oliver said. “More importantly, we have reached the point that it is time to clarify the role of the chair is to facilitate meetings. The chair should not be able to block board members from being able to participate.”

Ritz and the board have been at odds for almost a year over who has more authority to guide state education policy and specifically on the question of how much discretion Ritz should have to decide what is on the board’s agenda, who can speak during board meetings and what motions are allowed.

Last November, tension over those questions reached its peak when Ritz abruptly adjourned a state board meeting after board members objected to one of her rulings. That led to a meeting with an outside facilitator and a handful of changes to the board’s rules meant to avoid such conflicts in the future.

Ritz, who chairs the board by law, is the only Democrat holding statewide office. The other 10 board members includes Republicans and Democrats but all have been appointed by Republican governors. As chair, Ritz is empowered to run the board’s meetings but her critics say she has used that parliamentary authority at times to stymie the will of the board.

Her defenders, however, argue Ritz has been under siege from a covert effort by Gov. Mike Pence to diminish her authority and take control of education department functions that traditionally have fallen under the auspices of the elected state superintendent.

Last summer, Pence used new authority granted him by the legislature in 2013 to establish the Center for Education and Career Innovation. Among its functions was to employ a staff for the state board using funds that previously had been overseen by the education department.

Ritz has charged that CECI sometimes acts as a shadow education department. Policy disagreements have led, for instance, to lawyers for the department and for CECI standing at the same podium giving the state board conflicting advice on questions of what state law dictates the board must do in some circumstances.

That happened again at the last board meeting, as Ritz refused to allow a vote on a resolution Oliver offered that addressed Indiana’s status with the U.S. Department of Education.

Oliver and others complained that they felt Ritz’s team failed to provide information to the board in a timely manner about her answer to a request from federal officials for Indiana to explain how the state would keep promises it made in 2012 in return for a waiver from sanctions under the federal No Child Left Behind law.

The resolution, Oliver said, was intended to clarify that the state was committed to maintaining A to F school grades, which he said was required by state law, and wasn’t signing on in advance to any changes Ritz might propose to state tests. But Ritz’s supporters saw the resolution as simply an attack on her effort to reassure federal officials that the state would not violate the terms of its waiver.

ISTA argued the proposal for Wednesday is just the latest step in an effort to limit Ritz’s power.

“This new resolution brought forth by the governor-appointed State Board of Education members is the latest in this fixation over gaining singular power at the expense of the authority of the superintendent of public instruction,” the ISTA blog post states.

But to Oliver, new procedures are needed if the board is going to get its work done.

“You cannot be a policy setting body when members of the board can’t put items on the agenda to deliberate,” he said. “Any time you have board with a chair, for example, there has to be a way to appeal the ruling of the chair. The notion that you can’t appeal a ruling is unheard of.”

Indiana's dilemma: Should state test scores count next year?

2014-06-05T03:40:56+00:00

Indiana could propose letting teachers and schools off the hook from sanctions for poor test scores next year as part of its effort to meet demands from the U.S Department of Education.

But state Superintendent Glenda Ritz and the Indiana State Board of Education today faced a series of tough questions they’ve only just started to try to answer about what that could mean for the state’s school accountability system.

Perhaps the most basic question is whether a one-year reprieve from test score-driven accountability, which can lead to sanctions ranging from state takeover of a school to blocked pay raises for teachers, is even legal.

“I think it’s a bad idea, period,” board member Tony Walker said. “I think we could be creating a problem on the accountability side.”

Ritz said delaying accountability for a year in 2015 was just one idea and that she was only getting a conversation started about how to change the testing system.

But there is a fast-approaching deadline: Indiana must report to the U.S. Department of Education in just 25 days how it will put in place new standards and testing next school year or lose control over millions of dollars for schools.

The state signed an agreement, called a “waiver,” with federal officials in 2012 pledging to raise its standards and institute tougher tests by 2015. The deal released Indiana from looming sanctions of the federal No Child Left Behind Law. Most states have received waivers from rules now widely deemed to be too tough that would have required all children to be testing on grade level by this year.

In early May, the U.S. Department of Education put Indiana on notice, demanding that it show how it would meet its waiver promises by June 30.

Losing the waiver could hurt hundreds of schools by blocking a portion of federal aid they receive. That money, more than $230 million annually, pays for staff and programs across the state that aim to help poor children succeed.

The core problem is that the Indiana expects it will have to give a much tougher state test in the spring of 2015.

Requests to federal officials for an extra year to allow teachers to adapt to new state standards approved in April before being tested under the higher expectations — with more advanced and complicated test questions — have been denied, Ritz said.

“We are going to be getting a much more rigorous assessment,” she said. “It’s likely to show a drop in student performance.”

Lower test scores, driven by new expectations rather than poor performance of students, could have wide effects on teachers and schools that some have argued would be unfair.

Teachers’ pay raises, and even their job security, are decided in part based on whether their students see their scores go up or down. Likewise, schools that are rated a D or F for low test scores face ever-increasing scrutiny and then sanctions if they don’t get their scores to rise.

One way to account for that, Ritz said, is to give a one-year pass. The state board could, she said, take a year break from some accountability measures in 2015. For example, student test scores could be dropped for just that year from teacher evaluation calculations. Or schools with low grades could skip 2015 and pick up with the next year’s A to F grade to determine if they need intervention. All the scores, grades and evaluation results would be published, they just wouldn’t count for accountability, Ritz suggested.

But that idea presents problems.

First, it’s not certain such a plan would meet U.S. Department of Education approval, although Ritz said she’s already begun to discuss the idea with federal officials.

Second, the state sanctions for teachers and schools occur because they are written into state law, which can’t be easily changed.

Ritz, however, said her department found a precedent: in 2008-09, Indiana switched from giving state tests in the fall to the spring and accountability sanctions were halted for a year. State education department officials are researching what steps the state board took to make that happen, she said.

Indiana would not be in this situation except for two actions, one taken by Gov. Mike Pence and the other by the state legislature.

Under former Gov. Mitch Daniels and Ritz’s predecessor, Tony Bennett, the state adopted Common Core standards and joined the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers, or PARCC.

Common Core is a set of academic standards adopted by 45 states with the goal of assuring students graduate high school ready for college and careers. PARCC is a consortium of states that are working together to create new tests they can all use to measure if students have mastered Common Core standards.

Indiana had been on track to have Common Core standards in place and begin using PARCC tests instead of ISTEP in 2015. But in 2013, that all changed.

Soon after taking office that year, Pence said he had reservations about Common Core and that summer he ordered Indiana’s withdrawal from PARCC. At the same time, conservative lawmakers balked at the state’s participation in Common Core, which they deemed as ceding too much control to policymakers outside the state.

In March, the Indiana legislature passed a bill voiding Indiana’s adoption of Common Core and ordering new standards be put in place for 2014-15.

As a result, teachers and students will have less than a year from the time the new standards are put in place before they are tested on them. And Indiana does not yet have a test that can measure either the new state standards as required by state law or “college and career readiness,” which federal officials expect.

Ritz said she is working to set another state board meeting for the week of June 22 to present a plan for the board to approve and Indiana to submit to the U.S. Department of Education before its June 30 deadline.

Behning wins easily despite primary campaign scare

2014-05-07T16:58:09+00:00

Indiana’s House education committee chairman, who was concerned enough about a primary challenger to begin airing television ads in the campaign’s last week, won re-election easily Tuesday.

Robert Behning, R-Indianapolis, led his Republican challenger, union-backed electrician Mike Scott, 59 percent to 41 percent in final, unofficial results for Marion County. The bulk of Behning’s district is in Marion County’s Decatur Township, along with smaller parts in Morgan and Hendricks counties.

Scott had made Behning’s central role in changing education in the state over the past several years a centerpiece of his case against the incumbent. But if the results for Marion County hold true for the whole district, he will have only improved by four percentage points over his 2012 showing, when he also challenged Behning and received 37 percent of the vote.

Behning helped shepherded through the legislature bills to support the education agenda pushed by former Gov. Mitch Daniels and then-Superintendent Tony Bennett. That led to new laws that created private school vouchers, expanded charter schools and instituted teacher evaluation. He was also an early backer of Common Core standards.

His vocal support for those ideas, along with A to F school grading and accountability based on testing, made Behning a lightning rod for critics, who rallied behind Scott.

Behning said Monday his internal polling had always showed him leading the race, but by smaller margins than he expected. That prompted a late fundraising push that helped pay for television ads.

Scott had worked to tie Behning’s support of private school vouchers and other Daniels initiatives to a financial crunch in Dectaur Township schools, which on Tuesday was seeking $28 million from voters to help avoid cutting busing next school year. Scott argued vouchers and charter schools drained money from public school districts.

But while Decatur’s referendum won easily with 64 percent voting yes, not nearly enough who voted for the school issue also backed Scott against Behning for him to claim victory.

Behning has served for 22 years in the House, including six years as education committee chairman.

State board could extend ISTEP, will review failing schools

2014-02-03T23:01:09+00:00

ISTEP’s testing window could be extended by up to seven more days in March under a plan the Indiana State Board of Education will consider Wednesday.

For ISTEP, the state sets a window of 10 school days during which local schools must administer the exams. This year, the window was planned for March 3 to 12. A proposal from the Indiana Department of Education would extend the window by five, six, or seven school days, depending on what the board prefers.

Some school districts that have lost several school days to bad weather cancellations have asked for a longer window to allow for a few more instructional days before taking ISTEP.

Also on the state board’s agenda, which was posted today, is a review of schools now entering their fourth and fifth consecutive years with an F rating. A sixth straight year rated an F prompts state board intervention, which could include state takeover.

Neither list includes any Indianapolis Public Schools. The five-year list includes two schools from Gary and two from Evansville. The four-year list does include one Indianapolis-area school — Options Charter School in Noblesville.

Finally, the board will hear an updated on Indiana’s standard’s review process. That effort likely will come under more scrutiny if the legislature approves Senate Bill 91, which would void the Common Core and require new state standards by July 1.

Lawmakers will consider exit strategy for state takeover

2014-02-01T01:55:18+00:00

Lawmakers will try to answer one of the great unsolved mysteries of Indiana’s education policy next month: What happens to a school taken over by the state at the end of the five-year contract signed by an outside group brought in to manage it?

Five persistently failing Indiana schools — four in Indianapolis and one in Gary — were removed from school district control and handed off to be run by companies and non-profit groups in 2012. But while state law lays out a step-by-step process for how state takeover begins, it is silent about what happens next.

Sen. Pete Miller, R-Avon, this week proposed a solution that could return the schools to the school districts they came from. But a provision that already has raised concerns would also allow the Indiana State Board of Education to turn those schools into charter schools, forever severing them from their former districts.

“Converting to a charter is not an option included in state law now,” Miller said. “I felt the Indiana State Board of Education should have that option.”

Miller’s proposal was added this week to Senate Bill 205, which is mostly aimed at adding rules to charter school contracts. The bill passed the Senate Education Committee 12-0 and is headed for a vote in the full Senate next week.

The option for the state to remove a school from district control is part of Public Law 221, passed by the legislature in 1999. The law requires the state to intervene when a school reaches six consecutive years of F grades under Indiana’s A to F grading system.

That happened for the first time in 2011 with seven schools. Under the law, public hearings were held on each school before the board considered five intervention options:

Revising the school’s improvement plan.
Merging the school with a higher scoring school.
Following the Indiana Department of Education’s recommendations to assign a “lead partner” organization to offer specialized assistance, such as teacher training or data analysis.
Following options proposed at a public meeting, including closing the school.
Initiating state takeover.

Two of the schools, IPS’s George Washington and Broad Ripple high schools, were assigned lead partners under the third option. Five others — Gary’s Roosevelt High School along with IPS’s Emma Donnan Middle School and Manual, Howe and Arlington high schools — entered state takeover.

An outside group was brought in to run each school. For-profit companies took over at four schools: Tennessee-based EdisonLearning at Roosevelt and Florida-based Charter Schools USA at Donnan, Manual and Howe. Tindley Accelerated Schools, a non-profit charter school operator based in Indianapolis, took over Arlington.

Each group signed a five-year contract with the state board, including a “transition year” to start, during which the companies only observed and planned for the first year of takeover. The contracts are now in their third years and expire at the end of the 2015-16 school year. Last year the schools made modest progress on test scores. All were once again rated F by the state.

Despite the specific process laid out in Public Law 221 for how school could end up in state takeover, the law was missing something big — what happens at the end of the takeover contract.

“Lots of folks have recognized that we need to talk about this,” Miller said. “We never put in an exit strategy.”

A 2012 bill would have put takeover schools in their own category as “independent” schools with charter-like rules allowing them to be permanently separate from their former school districts. But that bill did not make it to a floor vote.

This year’s Senate Bill 205 instead gives the state board three options:

Return the school to the school district.
Convert it into a charter school.
Revisit the five options in Public Law 221.

The third option could allow the state board to renew its contract with the takeover organization, or make other choices like closing or merging the school or assigning a lead partner.

Libby Ciezniak, IPS’s statehouse lobbyist, said the takeover schools should ultimately return to the district.

“There’s always been a lot of uncertainty about this, but they’re still IPS schools,” she said.

While takeover schools are managed with IPS oversight, the district still owns and maintains the buildings and grounds. Permanently reassigning district-owned real estate to an outside group would be complicated, she said.

IPS also wants to know more about how the takeover schools would be evaluated at the end of their contracts and what factors would decide if they return to the district or not. Senate Bill 205 is not specific enough, Cierzniak said.

It states: “In making a determination under this section, the state board may consider all relevant factors, including overall performance of the school corporation and the special management team.”

IPS wants to know exactly what “relevant factors” will be considered.

“The approach taken in the legislation seems to make sense,” she said, “but we’d like to know the criteria.”

Voucher schools don't get off the hook from ISTEP

2014-01-30T07:26:33+00:00

A plan to allow private schools that accept students using tax-funded vouchers for tuition to skip ISTEP testing was dropped from a Senate bill today.

Senate Bill 322 releases private schools that participate in the voucher program from some regulations that came with the program. For instance, a lawyer for some of the schools said reporting information to the state about students using vouchers who also are learning English as a second language was unnecessary.

But the ISTEP proposal was at the center of the controversy over the bill. It would have allowed voucher schools to use any nationally-normed test, such as the Iowa Test of Basic Skills, for state A to F accountability purposes, not just ISTEP.

That brought criticism from the Indiana State Teachers Association that voucher schools would get special treatment, and several public school advocates were lined up to testify against the bill at Wednesday’s Senate Education Committee. Even some Republicans, like Sen. Luke Kenley, R-Noblesville, said they opposed the ISTEP provision, preferring that all schools receiving state aid take the same test.

During discussion of the bill, author Scott Schneider, R-Indianapolis, offered an amendment stripping the ISTEP language, meaning private schools would still be required to take the state exam even if the bill passes. That defused much of the opposition, and the bill passed 8 to 3. It will be considered by the full Senate later this week.

Vouchers allow low- and middle-income families to redirect tax dollars meant for their child’s public school education to pay private school tuition.

Other developments involving education issues in the legislature Wednesday included:

An effort to kill CECI

During debate of House Bill 1319, which makes it easier for charter schools to rent or buy empty or underused public school buildings, Democrats offered an amendment that would have denied funding to the Center for Education and Career Innovation.

The center was created by Gov. Mike Pence in August, using $14 million in funding that was redirected from the Indiana Department of Education and other agencies. Pence said CECI would coordinate education policy among the state’s many agencies that deal with schools and workforce development. But state Superintendent Glenda Ritz dubbed it a power grab.

“What have the people of Indiana seen from this new bureaucracy?” Democratic leader Rep. Scott Pelath, D-Michigan City, said in a statement. “So far we have seen that they hired a bunch of high-priced bureaucrats and not much else.”

The amendment was defeated. A full House vote on House Bill 1319 is expected later this week.

Data security passes committee

Senate Bill 277, which would prohibit the sale, release or transfer of identifying student information outside of the state, passed the education committee 10-0. This bill is partly in response to fears of anti-Common Core activists that following the national standards could make student data more vulnerable. While some states using the Common Core have agreed to share testing and other data with the U.S. Department of Education, Indiana is not one of them. The bill seeks to assure personal data is not shared in the future.

Teacher Choice program gets OK

One of Gov. Mike Pence’s signature ideas, a fund for supplemental pay to help teachers who agree to teach in disadvantaged schools, passed the education committee 6-2.

Under Senate Bill 264, a teacher who changes jobs in order to teach in a public or charter school rated D or F could receive up to $10,000 a year in supplemental pay. The program would not begin until the legislature adds a line for it to the state budget and allocates money for it, which can’t happen before 2015. But the bill proposes setting aside $2.5 million for the program.

Author Jim Banks, R-Columbia City, said the goal is to entice talented teachers to work in the neediest schools. But critics say it’s unclear what happens to a teacher’s pay when the extra money runs out.

Data security efforts raise concerns from Ritz allies

2014-01-28T01:39:01+00:00

Three new bills under consideration this week could redefine how the state’s education data is managed, accessed, and stored.

The bills have different goals. While one seeks to connect multiple layers of Indiana students’ information in one place, pulling together K-12, college, and workforce data to learn what skills students need for future jobs, two others aim to defend against concerns about privacy.

Despite their differences, all three bills have provoked concerns about who controls Indiana’s education data and how to protect it.

One concern stems from arguments by critics of the new Common Core standards. By adopting the new standards, the critics have said, Indiana could make its students’ data vulnerable to being shared outside the state, such as with the federal government or private vendors. Other states that have participated in the Common Core standards have signed agreements to share their students’ data with federal government, the critics point out.

Proponents of more sophisticated use of education data have advocated for creating large data warehouses that can be used, for example, to track student test scores over time with the hopes that the information could be useful in improving instruction, such as through teacher evaluation. But critics of this idea fear that the data-gathering could be used by the federal government to take control of educational decision making or put students’ personal information at risk of being stolen or sold to private companies.

Another point of contention in Indiana has to do with the ongoing battle between State Superintendent Glenda Ritz and Governor Mike Pence over the state’s education direction. While the battle between the two has to do with different ideas about how to improve schools, the weapons have been control over various state education apparatuses — and data is a key tool that each wants to control.

A new “data czar?”

It was House Bill 1003 that first raised alarms.

Authored by Rep. Steve Braun, R-Zionsville, it would create a new state agency under Gov. Mike Pence that aims to bring together data from K-12 schools, colleges, the state’s workforce development arm and business leaders with the goal of spotting trends and helping schools adapt to employer needs.

The bill immediately generated criticism from the state’s largest teachers union, which characterized the head of the new agency as a “data czar” and another threat to Ritz’s authority of the Indiana Department of Education and the data it manages.

Under the headline “Dangerous student, parent and teacher data bill being pushed in the Indiana legislature,” the Indiana State Teachers Association warned its affiliates on Jan. 18 on its blog that by creating the Indiana Knowledge Network, the bill essentially established “another new government bureaucracy” and asked supporters to oppose it.

“The bill essentially makes INK a new government database warehousing agency that will be controlled by Gov. Pence and his appointed director, who will become, in effect, the state’s ‘data czar,’ “ the post read.

The network actually already exists as the Indiana Workforce Intelligence System, a consortium that includes the Indiana Department of Workforce Development, the Indiana Commission on Higher Education, the Indiana Department of Education and Indiana University’s Indiana Business Research Center. Each group shares data and analysis.

But the bill aims to ratchet up the use of the data through a new state agency. Its board would be made up of appointees from the departments who provide data to it — education, higher education and workforce development. Also on the board would be Pence appointees from business and universities along with two members of the House and two from the Senate.

Braun argues the bill would only allow better use of data the state already is collecting. The idea, he said, is not to change the way data is collected or how each collecting agency uses it, BUT to make connections to try to better understand the job market and how well Indiana students are prepared for it.

“We hope to do what no other state is doing today, to accurately project the future job market to inform how the education system is developing curriculum for building those skill sets, or train existing workforces.”

But Ritz thinks the bill gives too much latitude for data collection without enough accountability, said John Barnes, her lobbyist.

“Our initial concerns were about the creation of someone who is a data czar,” Barnes said. “We’re concerned about too much power in the hands of too few people and insufficient checks and balances at a time when concerns about data privacy is a hot topic. We’re concerned that the governance committee doesn’t have enough oversight power. There aren’t enough teeth in that. We’d like to see that beefed up.”

Democrats on the House Committee on Commerce, Small Business and Economic Development, where the bill was passed last week, also said they might ask for changes when the bill is considered by the full House this week.

“It’s a great bill,” said Shelli VanDenburgh, D-Crown Point. “There are a lot of great things in here. However if this bill gives carte blanche to INK to have whatever data they need on any student and access to any data the department of education, and our state holds very close in privacy, I have concerns on that.”

A data repository

Another potential battle over data security came to the fore in today’s House Education Committee meeting, during a discussion of a second education data bill that also is being considered this week. House Bill 1320, authored by committee Chairman Robert Behning, R-Indianapolis, creates a data repository for education records.

Behning said the House Bill 1320’s purpose is to make data that schools see, but parents generally don’t, accessible so parents can learn more about how their children are performing academically. For example, the state uses student test scores over the years to predict their likelihood of each student graduating on time, he said. State test score reports will include this information in the future and the data will be accessible to parents online, Behning said.

“The goal of this is to provide additional information to parents that they are not receiving,” he said.

Union leaders and other Ritz supporters came to the hearing with lots of questions about a provision that would put this new repository under the control of the state board, not Ritz. They feared that move could have potentially allowed the state board to work around Ritz or veto her decisions about when and what type of data was released.

The bill even attracted the attention of Diane Ravith, the educational historian who has become one of the nation’s most prominent opponents of standardized testing and what she calls “big data,” as well as a supporter of Ritz.

But the Behning quickly defused any controversy when he opened the hearing by offering an amendment to keep the data under Ritz’s control. Behning said placing the repository under the state board was an error and never his intent for the bill.

“That certainly changes some of our issues with the bill,” said John O’Neil, an Indiana State Teachers Association lobbyist. “We want to make sure this isn’t a new entity created that is under the CECI or the state board.”

The bill also aims to beef up data security by adding criminal penalties for anyone who releases data that can be directly tied to students. Doing so would be a misdemeanor under the bill, punishable by a fine of up to $5,000 or up to a year in jail.

Behning said he would hold off on a vote until later in the week to allow committee members to review amendments and other changes to the bill.

Common Core fix

A final data bill, Senate Bill 277, is designed specifically to preempt concerns about what data-sharing efforts could mean for students’ privacy. In Indiana, the concerns have swirled around a question of whether to implement the national Common Core learning standards.

During the 2013 legislative session, lawmakers responded to critics of the standards by passing a law that put a “pause” on the state’s implementation of the Common Core, This bill addresses a different concern of Common Core critics — that the standards could compromise students’ privacy.

While the Common Core itself does not require data sharing, several states adopted the standards at the same time they accepted federal Race to the Top education grants and also agreed to share data with the U.S. Department of Education.

Miller’s bill is aimed at addressing the worry that Indiana would have to share students’ personal information with the federal government or private companies.

“It’s intended to make clear when data can be shared,” Miller said. “Some folks think it may have been opened up to more of an opportunity to be shared. I’m not trying to stop anything we do currently.”

Indiana adopted Common Core standards in 2010, joining 45 other states that have agreed to follow them. The standards are aimed at making students “college and career ready” by the time they graduate high school and more able to compete against students educated in other countries. In Indiana, Common Core from opponents have argued the standards are not as strong as Indiana’s prior standards or or that they will cede too much control over the state’s education policy to the federal government, including control over student records.

“Until Common Core began, many parents had no idea how vulnerable their students’ data had become,” said Heather Crossin, co-founder of Hoosiers Against Common Core, who supports the bill. “They’d like to see their children’s right to privacy be assured.”

Common Core supporters have embraced the bill and the concept of data security, hoping to calm fears about the standards.
“There was no intent, no plan and no law that was going to compromise that data,” Derek Redelman, a Common Core supporter and vice president of the Indiana Chamber of Commerce, said of the national standards. “But if we can allay those concerns we are ready to do so.”

Frank Bush, executive director of the Indiana School Boards Association, said data security and Common Core go well together.

“As a Common Core supporter we strongly support this bill,” he said. “I hope it will eliminate some of the fears.”

Supporting two charter school bills, IPS signals a new direction (updated)

2014-01-22T09:12:37+00:00

After years of antagonism, Indianapolis Public Schools is trying out a new approach to charter schools: cooperation.

The district, led by new Superintendent Lewis Ferebee, is supporting two bills in the state legislature aimed at making it easier for school districts to partner with charter schools.

The first—House Bill 1063—would create new “compacts” between school districts across the state and charter schools. The compacts would give charter schools access to district services like busing and school buildings in exchange for letting districts count the charter schools’ test scores in their annual averages.

The bill passed the House with a unanimous 97-0 vote today, garnering support from Republicans, who have long favored charter schools, as well as Democrats, who have often been hostile to the independently run public schools.

Like Democrats, IPS officials have aggressively fought charter schools. But they also offered their support for the bill. And on Thursday, Ferebee himself will testify on behalf of a second bill that would steer the district into closer relationships with charter schools.

That bill—house Bill 1321, which only applies to Indianapolis Public Schools—would give the district some of the levers of control over charters that are now enjoyed by the schools’ sponsors, such as setting expectations for the schools’ academic performance levels. In exchange, the charter schools would be allowed to run existing IPS schools through contracts with the district or operate their own schools inside IPS buildings.

If House Bill 1321 is passed by the education committee Thursday, it could be up for a vote of the full House next week.

“We need every tool in the toolbox,” Ferebee said. “I’m looking to strengthen autonomy at the school level. I believe this is an opportunity to do so and to forge beneficial relationships.”

Both bills offer a similar covenant. The charter school gets services or resources from the district. In return, the district can count the test scores from those schools in its cumulative averages. The bills would also give IPS a degree of control over two factors that have vexed district officials: input into where some charter schools locate and whether they offer a quality program.

“I’d like to think IPS and any other district with high-achieving charter schools would want to work together,” said Rep. Todd Huston, R-Fishers, who authored House Bill 1063. “In this case, if the charter school doesn’t perform well, the district loses its incentive to partner with that charter school.”

The cooperative stance represents a departure from the way IPS has viewed charter schools in the past. Ferebee’s predecessor, former Superintendent Eugene White, often complained that charter school proponents were seeking an unrealistic “silver bullet” solution in promoting the schools as a way to improve education across the city.

In response to charter school growth, White embraced competition. He created charter-like magnet school options within IPS to attract students who might otherwise have left for charter schools and even sent IPS recruiters door-to-door to try to bring students who left the district back to IPS schools. As superintendent, when White went to the statehouse, it was often to testify against charter schools or efforts to expand them.

Ferebee said he holds a different view of school competition.

“I don’t think we have to operate in an environment of animosity with charter schools,” he said. “We can learn from, and with, each other. We vie for the same resources and serve the same students.”

The majority of IPS board members, four who were elected in 2012, campaigned on a promise that district schools would have more freedom from the central office and would be held more accountable for results in return. They picked Ferebee to replace White in part with an eye toward fresh thinking about competition with charter schools and other school choice options.

“This is the direction we intended to take,” said board member Gayle Cosby, one of the new board members from 2012, of the district’s support for the charter school bills. “I think it’s a step in the right direction. We just need to make sure these relationships are mutually beneficial.”

One challenge the bills aim to tackle is facilities. Under current law, charter schools receive no public dollars for facilities or transportation. They sometimes spend millions to build a school or thousands each month to rent one, taking away money that could otherwise be used for instruction.

At the same time, Ferebee argues that IPS suffers when charter schools locate close to the district’s own buildings. The charter school lures away students and the state dollars that go with them, creating empty space in the local neighborhood school.

“I definitely view it as an efficiency,” Ferebee said. “Look at facilities utilization. You have millions of dollars being poured into old warehouses and Toys R Us stores to turn them into schools. Is that best for our students?”

Rep. Robert Behning, R-Indianapolis, who chairs the House Education Committee and authored House Bill 1321, said sometimes it might make more sense for two nearby schools to share a building, or for the charter school to instead manage a persistently failing school.

“In some cases we have a charter right across from a neighborhood school,” he said. “Hopefully they can work collaboratively to make sure we have programs that meet the needs of students.”

One potential hangup in the second bill, House Bill 1321, is a provision that would give hiring freedom to schools operated in partnership.

Gail Zaheralis, who lobbies at the statehouse for the Indiana State Teachers Association, said the statewide union supports House Bill 1063 but opposes House Bill 1321 and will testify against it in the House Education Committee.

House Bill 1321 can be used to bring in outside management for schools rated a D or F for three years, according to ISTA’s analysis. Contracts with the outside management organization could not be less than five years, the analysis showed. District employees would have to switch to working for the outside group to stay at the school, giving up their union-protected jobs with IPS.

She likened it to the state’s take over of four IPS schools in 2012. She painted the bill as allowing what amounted to an IPS-led takeover of one of its own schools.

“Frankly, it appears to be another way to accelerate takeover by private, for-profit management companies–even when the data so far fails to demonstrate that this works,” Zeheralis said.

Democratic state Superintendent Glenda Ritz has yet to take a position on House Bill 1321.

IPS’s teachers union leaders are perturbed that they have not been invited to the table to discuss the bills.

“Nobody’s talked to us about that at all,” union President Rhondalyn Cornett said. “We need more information.”

Her predecessor, past President Ann Wilkins, interjected with a caution for Ferebee.

“Until they do discuss it with us, the answer is a no,” she said.

Despite their unanimous support for House Bill 1063, Democrats weren’t completely at ease with the move toward school district cooperation with charter schools.

“I’m lukewarm to it,” said Rep. Greg Porter, D-Indianapolis, said. “I have not fully embraced it.”

Even so, Porter voted for House Bill 1063 and said he could be open to supporting House Bill 1321 if it will help Ferebee and IPS.

“It’s a new superintendent and he’s interested in looking at charters to see how to improve education,” Porter said. “The whole concept is that charters are public schools. Maybe he has a new direction. We have to trust him to do what he thinks is right.”

(NOTE: An earlier version of this story cited Rep. Robert Behning as saying union bargaining would be optional for schools operated in partnership under House Bill 1321. Bargaining for such schools is actually prohibited in the bill. Behning said he intended to reference current law regarding charter schools, not the bill.)

More A's and B's, fewer F's for Indiana school districts

2014-01-15T18:51:18+00:00

Indiana school districts earned more A and B grades, and fewer D’s and F’s, than last year on their state report cards.

The grades for 289 school districts, based mostly on test scores, were approved and released today by the Indiana State Board of Education. Last month, the state released grades for more than 1,800 individual schools. Find your district’s grade here.

Districts received both an A to F letter grade and a numerical score on a four-point scale, similar to a grade point average. The district grades do not carry the same accountability sanctions as school grades. Schools that persistently fail can be taken over by the state, but districts don’t face that danger.

Board member David Freitas hailed the results as a good sign for Indiana.

“This is another indicator of the quality of education in Indiana,” he said. “As we look at the various trends, they’re all going up.”

Indianapolis Public Schools made one of the biggest gains in the state, but it’s numerical score remained so low that the district still ended up as one of just four in the state rated an F. It had the highest score of the F districts.

Debbie Dailey, an Indiana Department of Education data expert, said IPS fell just short of moving up to a D and will earn a higher grade next year if it continues to make gains.

“That is definitely a significant increase,” she said. “That is the correct trajectory to get out of the F category. They are four hundredths of a point away from breaking into the D category.”

The others Indiana F districts are East Chicago, Gary and Medora. Those same districts rated an F last year along with Hammond, which moved up to a D this year.

Among the other major story lines:

Nineveh-Hensley-Jackson schools in Johnson County was among the top 10 districts in the state for gain on its numerical score. It’s grade jumped to an A from a C last year.
Other Indianapolis area districts that ranked high in the state for gains made include Washington Township, which went to a C from a D; Northeastern in Shelby County, up to a B from a C; and Danville in Hendricks County, jumping to an A from a C. All were among the top 40 districts for growth in the numerical score.
Three other Indianapolis area districts saw their grades rise: Shelby Eastern, up to a B from a C; Eastern Hancock went to an A from a B; and Franklin in Johnson County jumped to a B from a C.
Johnson County’s Ediburgh saw its numerical score make among the largest declines in the state. It’s grade fell from an A to a B.
Twelve Indianapolis-area districts earned perfect scores: Clark-Pleasant, Westfield, Shelbyville, Western Boone, Zionsville, Hamilton Southeastern, Northwest Hendricks, Carmel, Brownsburg, Mill Creek, Center Grove and Franklin Township.
Other Indianapolis school districts that earned an A were: Speedway, Southern Hancock, Plainfield, Noblesville, Avon, Danville, Eastern Hancock, Greenfield, Hamilton Heights and Greenwood.