PILLIE: Don’t toss the reforms along with Bennett

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

PillieIn the modern political world, it seems the validity or importance of an idea is treated no more seriously than what brand of butter substitute you buy from the local grocery store. Most recently, Indiana has experienced this phenomenon in education policy.

A number of stories have been published recently based on emails sent during former Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Bennett’s tenure, and current Superintendent Glenda Ritz has been busy pointing out the faults of her predecessor.

Looking at Ritz’s record, I’m not sure what she has actually accomplished outside of trying to roll back her predecessor’s policies or flat out discredit him.

Ritz used ISTEP delays to criticize the results of those tests, only to be assured by her own auditor that student performance wasn’t affected. In spite of improved student achievement, Ritz tried to make it easier for kids who can’t read to be promoted to fourth grade.

The only actual work on the education front she has delivered is a promise to provide greater transparency for the revised A-F grading system.

Her office doesn’t exactly have a stellar track record in this regard. At Hoosier Access, we documented how Ritz’s public access counselor lied to a citizen about the existence of a public information request from Associated Press reporter Tom LoBianco.

In those documents, she indicated there is no written request from LoBianco, which is required by law. When pressed on that point, her public access counselor “remembered” there is a written request and provided a month-long email exchange between the counselor and LoBianco.

Some Republicans feel too little has been done to defend Bennett, given all the work he put into delivering these education reforms. While they are entitled to their opinion, some actions of Bennett and his staff are quite frankly indefensible. There is absolutely no reason that political call lists, campaign donor lists or any political documents should be passed around a government office.

Speaking as someone who has worked in a public office, the inability of Bennett’s team to distinguish between politics and policy is disturbing. If the party were governed like any professional sports league, I’m certain some suspensions would be handed out. What’s really amazing is that, in spite of how politicized the office became, they still weren’t able to secure re-election.

Bottom line, we need to move past the personalities involved here. Improving Indiana’s education system is too critical to the future of our state’s work force.

In spite of some very flawed decisions by Bennett and his team, the validity of their reforms is supported by the results. We’ve seen significant increases in the pass/fail rate of the ISTEP tests as well as the four-year cohort graduation rate in public schools during the Bennett administration.

For all of the Bennett’s administration failings, it’s clear student performance improved during his tenure.

Our political discussions need to rise above this never-ending cycle of “he said, she said” attacks about how much or how little an office is politicized. There are too many challenges and too many flawed people to throw out their ideas because they make mistakes.

People attracted to politics share the same flaws we all must endure. Some rise above those flaws while others make mistakes as a consequence of them.

Instead of assessing these ideas based on who is putting them forward, let’s start looking at the ideas themselves. A few of them might just work.•


Pillie is managing editor of the conservative blog Hoosier Access and a former congressional aide in Washington, D.C., and Indiana. Send comments on this column to ibjedit@ibj.com.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Liberals do not understand that marriage is not about a law or a right ... it is a rite of religous faith. Liberals want "legal" recognition of their homosexual relationship ... which is OK by me ... but it will never be classified as a marriage because marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. You can gain / obtain legal recognition / status ... but most people will not acknowledge that 2 people of the same sex are married. It's not really possible as long as marriage is defined as one man and one woman.

  2. That second phrase, "...nor make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunitites of citizens..." is the one. If you can't understand that you lack a fundamental understanding of the Constitution and I can't help you. You're blind with prejudice.

  3. Why do you conservatives always go to the marrying father/daughter, man/animal thing? And why should I keep my sexuality to myself? I see straights kissy facing in public all the time.

  4. I just read the XIV Amendment ... I read where no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property ... nor make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunitites of citizens ... I didn't see anything in it regarding the re-definition of marriage.

  5. I worked for Community Health Network and the reason that senior leadership left is because they were not in agreement with the way the hospital was being ran, how employees were being treated, and most of all how the focus on patient care was nothing more than a poster to stand behind. Hiring these analyst to come out and tell people who have done the job for years that it is all being done wrong now...hint, hint, get rid of employees by calling it "restructuring" is a cheap and easy way out of taking ownership. Indiana is an "at-will" state, so there doesn't have to be a "reason" for dismissal of employment. I have seen former employees that went through this process lose their homes, cars, faith...it is very disturbing. The patient's as well have seen less than disireable care. It all comes full circle.