Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Accountability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
PHM learning-division outlines Indiana's new accountability model; board presses for clarity on growth measures and timing
Summary
Dr. Lavonne Dean Knoll of PHM's learning division walked the board through IDOE's new accountability model (GPS platform, 18 indicators) and said the first year of letter grades is a baseline "year 0;" board members questioned how growth, private-school selection and timing of published grades will be handled.
Dr. Lavonne Dean Knoll, presenting for the district learning division, briefed the Penn-Harris-Madison Board of School Trustees on the Indiana Department of Education's newly approved accountability model, which uses the GPS (Graduates Prepare to Succeed) framework and 18 measures spanning preschool through graduation.
Dean Knoll said the model evaluates individual students across five broad characteristics — academic mastery; career and postsecondary readiness; communication and collaboration; work ethic; and civic/financial/digital literacy — then averages student-level scores to produce school grades. She described a two-step calculation: academic-mastery points plus additional "student success indicators" (SSIs) for credentials, attendance, CTE/coursework and similar experiences.
For grades K–3 she identified iLearn and iRead results, attendance and English-language supports as SSIs; for grades 4–6 she said the model emphasizes growth measured at multiple levels (growth, acceleration, excellence); for middle school she cited required graduation plans and high-school credits; and for grades 11–12 she outlined an 80/10/10 weighting (about 80% SSIs/work-based learning, 10% graduation rate, 10% SAT proficiency).
Dean Knoll cautioned the board that this first reporting year is being treated as "year 0" because the model was finalized midyear and that thresholds are expected to tighten in subsequent years. She also noted the district maintains a direct data exchange with IDOE (via Skyward), so many SSIs (attendance, iRead retakes, credits) are already reported directly to the state.
Board members asked detailed questions about whether the state's model assesses students as individuals, how those student scores translate to school and district grades, and whether schools that can select students (private schools) will have an advantage in per-student comparisons. Dean Knoll said the model assesses both students and schools, that growth factors and diploma/track differentiation are intended to account for differing student pathways, and that the state has not fully specified some success indicators (for example, how communication/collaboration will be measured).
She reported district-level metrics the board requested: 87% of PHM teachers were rated highly effective under state evaluation rules, a point she attributed to hiring and professional development. The presentation was designated discussion only; the board thanked Dean Knoll and indicated the topic will return as state guidance and data are finalized.
What board members asked
Board members pressed for clarity on: how growth is calculated for students already near proficiency; whether year 0 reflects last year's data or the current school year; how and when the state will publish grades (Dean Knoll estimated a release in the fall once iLearn scores are finalized); and whether the state will provide accommodations or peer comparisons to address differences between public and private schools.
Next steps
Dean Knoll said she is available for follow-up questions and that administration will continue to monitor IDOE guidance and report back as details (especially thresholds and measurement definitions) become available.
