Indiana has the go-ahead from the Obama administration to use its own school accountability requirements – welcome relief from the rigid demands of the federal No Child Left Behind law. But the U.S. Department of Education approved use of an Indiana system with its own troubling points:

•The State Board of Education voted 6-2 Wednesday to revise the A-to-F grading system for schools, a decision that appears to penalize urban schools and make it easier for suburban schools to earn an A.

•The much-touted growth system promised by the Indiana Department of Education is abandoned for a performance system. Schools will not be rewarded when their students post bigger gains than similar students at other schools.

•The system retreats from the one feature that No Child Left Behind critics supported: its focus on poor students, students with disabilities, minority students and others separated by an achievement gap.

•The grading-scale shift and changing requirements arrive just as public schools confront direct competition from voucher schools not obligated to enroll at-risk students.

•The number of schools facing state takeover is dramatically increased, even though the turnaround models chosen by the state for interventions remain unproven.

Those issues explain why a Jan. 17 hearing on the proposed changes drew only criticism. Both the Indiana Coalition for Public Education and the Indiana Chamber of Commerce – groups on opposite sides of the voucher issue and others – agreed that the proposal was flawed.

It’s also why the public school educators on the State Board of Education voted against the changes last week. Superintendent Michael Pettibone of Adams Central Community Schools cited four reasons for his “no” vote, including the fact that the system doesn’t offer the simplicity state officials promised. He also questioned why the revised system gives schools scoring 2.99 a C, but schools must score a 3.5 instead of a 3.49 to earn an A.

“My question is ‘Why don’t you want to give A’s?’ ” Pettibone said. “They wouldn’t say.”

Fewer A’s

Bloomington-based writer Steve Hinnefeld writes on his School Matters blog that almost half the elementary and middle schools earned A’s last year; under the new measure, fewer than a quarter would have.

Pettibone’s own schools earn top marks, and private-school competition is limited in Adams County. But he’s sympathetic to the effect a reduced grade would have on an urban public school, traditional or charter, competing with a nearby voucher school.

He also expressed concerns about punishing high schools for awarding general diplomas instead of the more rigorous Core 40 credential. Pettibone noted testimony from a Cummins Engine official who acknowledged there is a place in the workforce for students who struggle but finish with a general diploma.

Finally, he questioned where the guidelines rewarded schools making bold changes.

“Nowhere in this A-to-F grading metric do you reward or recognize high schools that have the courage to go after reform methods,” Pettibone said.

Other concerns

Other area superintendents expressed concerns as well.

Superintendent Karyle Green of East Allen County Schools said she doesn’t believe the system will be easily understood, noting the confusion created as conflicting measures are released.

Superintendent Wendy Robinson of Fort Wayne Community Schools said she supported having a single accountability system but questioned changes to the grading system on which the waiver was granted.

“It’s a good thing to have one system, but the devil is always in the details,” she said. “There needs to be some further study by each of the school districts.”

Robinson said the original grading system was good because it gave credit for growth. But she suggested the grading system was revised to benefit wealthier schools, rewarding high schools, for example, for offering more Advanced Placement classes. Schools that must spend scarce resources on remediation would be penalized if they couldn’t offer as many AP courses as schools with fewer at-risk students.

“What I have to analyze as superintendent of a large urban district is where to put those resources,” she said. “It’s not going to change what we’re doing because we changed our system to focus on all our children, adding value and rigor to every child’s education. If the system has added a layer … I can’t financially provide all of the resources. I just want to make sure it’s fair.”

The Education Trust echoes Robinson’s concerns. It noted that Indiana’s grading system doesn’t factor in achievement goals set for the various groups of at-risk students.

The curious alignment of the Democratic-controlled federal education department and the GOP-controlled state education department bears watching. Combine that with the shared concerns of Indiana’s public education advocates and its business interests and you have a system that begs scrutiny.