ILNews

Indiana General Assembly to review ISTEP debacle next week

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Review of the Indiana Statewide Testing for Educational Progress moves to the Statehouse next week with the Indiana General Assembly’s Commission on Education scheduled to hear testimony about the ISTEP testing debacle that occurred in April.

Ellen Haley, the president of CTB/McGraw-Hill, the vendor of the online test, is scheduled to appear before the commission. Members of the commission are also inviting school superintendents, teachers, parents and other interested parties to attend and testify as well.

The Commission on Education will meet at 1 p.m. June 21 in the Senate chambers.

Last month when the legislative council approved the roster of 2013 interim study committees, it directed the Commission on Education to hold a hearing about the ISTEP malfunction in June.

The commission is co-chaired by Rep. Robert Behning, R-Indianapolis, and Sen. Dennis Kruse, R-Auburn.

Problems with ISTEP erupted in April when system interruptions prevented students from taking the exam. The Indiana Department of Education was forced to suspend testing twice.

CTB/McGraw-Hill maintained it had tested its system prior to the start of ISTEP. However, the company stated its “simulations did not fully anticipate the patterns of live student testing….”     




 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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 Indiana Lawyer 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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

  2. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  3. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  4. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  5. Different rules for different folks....

ADVERTISEMENT