Indiana's third grad reading scores show improvement.

A judge dismisses a lawsuit over a higher education law.

Plus, a new statewide water study and more from the television studios of WFYI It's Indiana Week in Review for the week ending August 23rd, 2024.

Indiana Week in Review is made possible by the supporters of Indiana Public Broadcasting stations.

This week, Indiana students made small gains in reading this year.

Indiana Public Broadcasting's Kirsten Adair reports scores for IREAD-3, the state's third grade reading exam, are at their highest level in recent years, but still well below pre-pandemic scores.

The overall pass rate increased to 82.5% this year.

That's still more than four points below pre-pandemic levels.

But Indiana Secretary of Education Katie Jenner says the 0.6 % point increase over last year's results shows the state's interventions are working.

It is exciting to have the highest year over year increase ever in the history since the start of the test.

More than 14,000 3r graders still failed the test.

But the Indiana Department of Education says many of those student could be eligible for exemptions so they won't have to take the test again.

Some student groups are modest score increases.

Black students saw the largest three points higher than last year.

Students in special education and students receiving free or reduce lunches saw increases as well.

Are the IREAD scores evidence tha the state's efforts are working?

It's the first question for our Indiana Week in Review panel.

Democrat Ann DeLaney.

Republican.

Mike O'Brien.

Jon Schwantes is the host of Indiana Lawmakers.

And Leslie Bonilla Muñi reporter for the Indiana Capitol Chronicle.

I'm Indiana Public Broadcasting statehouse bureau chief Brandon Smith.

Mike O'Brien point six percentage point increase doesn't sound exciting, but is that exciting?

it is exciting.

I mean, it's go in the right direction.

It was going the other direction before.

So if you net it out, it's not just 0.6, it's we didn't drop, you know, it's it's not getting worse.

And turning that corner wa really what's really important.

And look I mean this is the first third grade class.

So it's really truly like post-Covid when they started their education.

so it should continue to, to, to go up in the, the state, the legislature, put hundreds of millions of dollars into post Covid, education dollars to help kids catch up that maybe didn't have access to virtual learning or a sporadic access to virtual learning and fell behind during that period.

And so this is the direction these numbers need to go.

Point six maybe it's not knocking your socks off.

It will, you know, we'll keep moving the right direction.

I mean a .6.06.00.666 times, six times.

it doesn't sound like a lot, but at the same time, it's also the highest increase year over year in the 11 years now that this exam has, has been taken by students.

Is it is it?

Go back to the first question I ask.

Is it proof that what the state is doing so far is working?

I think it's a positive thing.

Okay, I'll grant you that.

But it's important to recognize that's all you're going to get the.

Point 6%.

But I think it's important to realize that this rate, it'll be years before we are going to be back where we were pre pandemic and where we were pre pandemic was nothing to brag about.

So it's important to keep this in perspective.

Yes they've put money in.

Yes that's a good thing.

But if they stop screwing around with education, if they stop with the diplomas and and the charter schools and the vouche and all the things they've done to screw up the educational process in Indiana and focus, I mean if those kids come out of third grade not knowing how to rea all the rest of that's garbage, it has no impact.

I agree.

With that.

Well, to that end, we've seen now, I don't think what lawmakers have done very recently on reading necessarily is showing up ye because so much of that is still to be implemented.

whether it's the science of reading or the stuff they just did on, holdin kids back in the last session.

But are these test scores again now?

I think it's three years in a row going in the right direction.

Is that enough for lawmaker to maybe this upcoming session go, okay, let's let all the stuff we've been doing the last couple of years play out a little bit more tinkering with it again.

Do you think it's enough to get them to hold off essentially on more changes?

I mean, something that Secretary Jenner mentioned is that, some of the teachers who are already trained in signs of reading during, you know, the year that the I read test was taken, saw pretty big improvements in scores.

I think, my colleague Casey's reporting was that, some classrooms saw a 20% jump in scores.

And so, like, maybe as more teacher finish the training, like maybe, who knows, like where that could go, but like, signs of reading training in that is just one factor that goes into how how the score shake out.

And then John, same question.

Do you think the the slow but steady progress here these last few year is enough for lawmakers to go.

Okay.

Let's let let's let the things we've already done play out a little more before we.

I think, thing.

I'm not sure.

What else they could do to tweak it at this point.

They really well, I should take that back.

There are always ways to tweak things, I suppose, but I think that's going to be the instinct because of the pattern of improvement.

I think the point that Leslie makes is a is a good one about the cadre, the state program that offers training and instruction for teachers in the science of reading and teaching.

Reading, as you poin out, average, I think, was point less than a percent, far less than a percent among schools that aren't participants in that program.

The increase was 0.02.0 something versus that two plus percentage point increase for schools where those teachers have, had access to that education.

I think.

Let's remember, though, let's before we celebrate, I was sort of the wet blanket here.

If this were an investment portfolio and say, let's use thousands of dollars instead of percentage points, you'd say, oh, good news, I'm your financial advisor.

Brandon.

I got you up to, what, $82,600?

And you're going to respond.

Yeah, but when the first year I came with you and joined your services, you were at $91,000.

Well, how come I'm not at nine, which was the first year of the test for the 20 2012 2013 year, was a 91% pass rate.

So we got to keep that in mind.

Covid no one could have anticipated.

It was an incredible blow for us and the rest of the world.

But let's hope that at some point we can get back to those levels we won't get.

I think the Holcomb administration had set a goal of 95% pass rate by 2027.

Chances are that's not.

And that seems like a long shot.

I also can't think of anyone, around this table.

I want to be my financial advisor.

Less than your job.

Yes.

Yes, I can lose that much money for you.

Yes.

All right, time now for viewer feedback.

Each week we post an unseen online poll question.

And this week's question is a .6 percentage point increase i third grade reading test scores?

Worth getting excited about a yes or B no.

Last week we asked you whether addressing property tax bills should be the top priority for the governor and lawmakers in 2025.

I like the results of this one.

They're interesting.

54% say yes, 46% saying no.

I would like to liv in the place where the 46% live.

If you'd like to take par in the poll, go to WFYI.org/IWIR and look for the poll.

A federal judge recently dismissed a lawsuit challenging a controversial new state law that university professors say violate their constitutional rights.

WFIUs Ethan Sandweiss reports Senate Enrolled Act 202 requires faculty to include a variety of opposing political viewpoints in the classroom or risk losing tenure protections.

The American Civil Libertie Union of Indiana is representing four Indiana professors who say the law violates their First and 14th Amendment rights.

Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita, who intervened in the case, says the law will foster diversity of thought.

He says the suit should be dismissed because the professors have not been harmed.

Judge Sarah Evans Barker agree that the plaintiffs claims, quote, are not ripe.

In other words, the professors need to show that their constitutional rights have already been infringed.

The ACLU argues that's already happening.

The very threat of punishment, it says, is already causing professors to censor themselves.

Barker cited a 2013 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that, quote, respondents cannot manufacture standing by inflicting harm on themselves based on fears of a hypothetical future.

The ACLU of Indiana declined.

An interview, but said.

In a statement it is considering other options to challenge the law.

Ann DeLaney, is the fight over this lawsuit behind us?

No, not at all.

I mean, the law is unconstitutional, and all Judge Barker said was that she needs a real controversy in front of her to make a decision.

I hope it's a shot across the bow for the universities saying it's coming back.

If you try to implement this in any way, or try to penalize those who don't subscribe to the half baked conspiracy theories of the Magna part of our population.

I mean, they're not going to be teaching things like creationism in among the rest of that in the schools and shouldn't be.

And I think the schools would like to back away from this as well.

I mean, the fact that this bill was authored by a Purdu employee is a disgrace, frankly, and I think there's probably not going to be invited to too many faculty or cocktail parties by the professors.

It'll be back.

If the universities don't use common sense and not implement it, it'll be back.

To that end.

Do you?

What message do you think this ruling sends the university?

I mean, they won, but is it a win?

It's a short term win.

I mean, I look I think this this idea that you've got you have to compel diversity by law and diversity of thought in classrooms is really complicated.

and it's also, you know, on all of these issues, whether it's banning book or whatever you create in these, you know, all the all these different areas where we're trying to kind of force thought, or force exposure of ideas.

I think back to my college experience.

I once I you as a political science, graduate, I you Patrick Sellars was my Congress professor, and he was for if you don't know who that is, it was he was also Tom Daniels, chief of staff when h was the Senate Democrat leader.

So he never walked into Congress class every day thinking I was going to ge a diverse, unbiased perspective on what Congress did that day and or did the day before.

But that's also how liberal he's been.

I know, and then but that's.

Well, some some would.

Argue.

But that's also.

My job kind of as a student isn't it, to go in there and go, look, I'm.

Pushed back.

I walked in.

We treat these kids like they're idiots.

Like they're like, they're just being like, fed stuf and they're not fed the thing.

We think they should be fed and they're going to go off and do things we don't want to do.

And I don't remember my college experience being that I ever walked into these, you know, constitutional law classes and the Congress classes and these things where, you know, things are being said.

I'm like, I don't agree with that.

That's the point.

That's like the whole point.

That we've we've lost the responsibility of the student in those two, and we make them just look like they're just these hapless victims that are getting dropped into these factories of liberalism, you know?

And it's just I'm just tired of it.

I want to ask about one part of this, this lawsui that that is interesting to me, which is that so the professors sued the universities because the universities are the ones who really enforce or implement this law.

But the attorney general's office, as would make sense, stepped in to defend a state law as they do in any case, or just about any case.

And the Attorney Genera Rokita office in its brief said anything a professor says in classroom is government speech.

The universities tried to back away from that opinion as fast as humanly possible.

But does that raise questions about how this law and others like it will be enforced going forward?

Sure.

There's confusion.

And in fact, the university I know IU has put ou a, you know, a deck of slides, along with the faculty council and others, and the VP for, Faculty affairs to deal wit these very real world questions.

You know, it's almost like a you'd see in a freshman orientation.

What do I d to get from Ballantine Hall to, you know, in this case, it's aimed at faculty.

It's like what is acceptable and what is not.

So they they understand there's there's certainly confusion.

but the notion that it's government speech that's fantasy.

I mean, this was this was not a ruling on the merits of the case.

This was simply about standing right.

And for the attorney general to suggest otherwise.

Well, it's never stopped him before.

I mean, he thinks he can make hay here.

One thing I would point out, and you've referred a couple of times to the universities being winners at this level, you know, the suit is against the trustees, which are increasingly not representative, but seems to me of the core of the universitie that they purport to represent.

And govern.

I would say that there are plenty of people in the university, even at the, in the senior administration, who didn't see this as a victory.

Yeah, it might have been a on paper lawyer.

To a lawyer.

It's just this is is all.

Well, I agree with you.

It's yeah, I agree with you, but I think there are many in the faculty who would have I mean, in the administration who have said I wish they had ruled on the merits because I think it'll go our way, the way and it would have resolve the issue.

So when we say who's the winners and losers are, it's always going to be ticklish.

Dealin with this particular litigation.

I will say, you know, I essentially ask you the same question to this one that I asked on the last one, which is from a legislators perspective, we know that the legislatio that lawmakers passed last year didn't appease all Republicans who are increasingly unhappy with leadership at higher education, professors and higher education.

But does this lawsuit going certainly their way for now and that the law is intact as is?

Does that postpone any further action they might otherwise take?

Well, so there's a couple o months between now and January, and it's a long session, so there's plenty of time for them to stick something into a vehicle bill.

So, I'm not really sure i it depends on what happens next.

It depends on how quickly universities finalize their policies and put them in a place, and how soon we see enforcement actions being an example.

Right.

Yeah.

If any enforcement actions.

Yeah.

And the fact tha that Rokita says it's government speech is worth exactl the powder to blow it to blazes.

The, the LEAP pipeline project has created a tug-of-war over the water supply in Tippecanoe County between residents there and those who want to create an industrial district in Lebanon.

Indiana Public Broadcasting's Rebecca Thiele reports.

The Indiana Chamber of Commerce says conflicts like that show the state needs to start water planning now.

A new report by the chamber says there's plenty of water in Indiana right now, but with central Indian growing and proposed development in other parts of the state, there may not be enough to meet demand in the future.

Jack Whittman is a hydrologist with INTERA which helped prepare the report.

He says Indiana has been slowly working to complete regional water studies, but leat project has shown the state needs regional and state water plants.

So it helps u see what other things can we do to make sure that we already anticipate these questions.

And we're ready with information and data.

Among other things, the chamber recommends putting one team in charge of state water planning, better monitoring Indiana's water resources and funding water research.

Leslie, can the state really prevent regional water fights in the future?

Already in the middle of a water fight, it's already begun.

And I think that, you know, even trying to put a policy on a paper would be a fight in itself.

But at the same time, these are things that can be short term skirmishes.

If they can battle it out and get something on you know, in the code, then maybe that could prevent or at least create a structure for handling this, which the chamber and many others have noted is likel to be a pretty long term issue.

So maybe.

I mean, yeah, how much will the this first battle, this first real water battle, which is playing out between Tippecanoe and Boone County and this district and and folks up in Tippecanoe, the whatever the resolution of that is, and we don't know what it is.

The state is still doing a study on that specific issue in those specific areas.

Whatever the result of that is, can that be a blueprint that can prevent more fights like it down the road?

One would hope.

I mean, this has been noted.

Indiana does, the experts say, have sufficient water supplies now, which is great.

Think of the states that would give their items.

To be to.

Be in that position.

so let's hope that that's the case.

But, you know, water is one of those things.

you almost have to tak a regional, holistic approach.

I mean, we see it not we're talking about something that would be at the statewide level, but look at water issue where it's multi-state compacts.

You look at southwestern part of the United of the United States, the Colorado River, where those those states are fed by, that.

It wouldn't matter if if Arizona did one thing in California, there has to be some collaboration, jus as the purity of the Great Lakes and the quality and keeping the carp, the dangerous, non-indigenous carp out of there.

It wouldn't matter if Indiana did one thing.

And so, because the water doesn't have a way of stopping at the state line, you know, whether it's a free flowing river or whether it's, in the water table underground, it doesn't there's no barrier.

The wall, as far as I know, doesn't nobody's built the wall between.

I mean, but God will crack that.

And make the water pay for it.

Is the.

I agree with that point.

I agree that it feels like it has to be a collaborative, regional thing, but now you're going to have the problem of the state being the one which would make the most sense to try and facilitate that against locals who say, hey you have no real authority here.

We're going to do what we're going to do with our water, and somebody else is goin to figure it out somewhere else.

But it's not their water.

Yeah, it's water that happened to it's a good thing the county to the west of Tippecanoe County didn't decide it was their water.

And now it's not flowing into Tippecanoe County.

You know, it's an absurd upset at this whole experience is absur since since this first came up.

I mean, typically we can't say we have 25 billion gallons more per day of water tha we need, and you can't have it.

That's not a thing.

That' not a role of local government.

This has to be managed.

This has to be managed statewide for the benefit of all Hoosiers.

The state was never going to take 20, 20 million gallons a day out of two county.

And then they were going to not have water anymore.

We were creating a water crisis.

We were solving another one, you know, and but this is because we, the state legislature, has neglected to and hasn't needed to really until now, step in and really put a statewide framework in place like so many other states have done.

This is like a Republican Democrat saying it's like it's like only liberal states manage their water.

Well, it's like with the just happens all over the country, but it's kind of having a statewide level.

You can't have your town councilman deciding.

Right.

And so and yet so much of the discussion because of the district and focused at this point, so more so on economic development has been too much of this state led, top down approach.

We have to stop doing that and empower local communities more and more and more.

That would seem to be in conflict with what's needed in this water conversation.

You have to have a statewide structure set up.

You absolutely have to, and you have to have a way of arbitrating between these groups.

Used to be when you had factories with big water demands, like coal companies, for example, they located by a river.

Now they want to locate wherever they want to locate or wher the quality of life is better.

Okay, fine.

But that means that we have to take a different approach to water than we used to, and the state is the only entity that can come in and set up a structure and set up a means of resolving disputes that are involved.

The only on there is the federal government, which are good.

We're not going to worry about it.

Know that would strike fear in the heart of, well.

Worry.

You know, I was also the realist.

The idea of though, lik locating where there is water.

I mean, I think that's something the chamber pointed out was like there's a huge, largely untapped water source in southeastern Indiana where there isn't right now, a lot of stuff going, hey, maybe some stuff should go there and make sense to put it there.

Northern Indiana to water rich.

Moved the water out of there, but then that gets pricey.

And that's part of the problem.

All right.

School attendance is improving for many Indiana students, according to recent state data from WFYIs Education Desk Dylan Peers McCoy reports.

The gains come after a surge in absenteeism in the wake of the pandemic.

The number of Indiana children chronically absent last year was about 18%, accordin to recent data from the state.

That's better than the previous school year.

It's the second year in a row that Indiana has modestly reduced the number of students who are missing way too muc school, Carolyn Gentle-Genitty of Butler University, is an expert on absenteeism.

She says the state's focus o school attendance is paying off.

Schools are doing their part, the state is doing its part, and parents are learning or understanding that their students do better when they're in school.

Indiana schools have used lots of strategies to improve attendance like regularly notifying parents of how many days their children have missed and holding attendance conferences with families.

John Schwantes this statement made be disagreed with by some of our panel, but in my view, lawmakers didn't do a ton in the way of absenteeism legislation in this past session.

Certainly not the sort of things we sounded it sounded like they were goin to do when the session started.

But they did send a message, certainly, if nothing else, that they wanted schools to focus on this problem rightfully so.

Does this sort of progress?

It seems lik this is the theme for the show.

Does this forestall further legislating?

Yes, this is enough, I think, to keep it off the table and and realistic fit.

You were alluding to a difference of opinion, about what was done and wasn't done.

You're right.

It wasn't any kind of draconian action that had been discussed early on.

You know, where every parent was going to be serving life sentences for promoting their kids.

That's tardiness.

Well, in some county.

Yeah.

Well, now we've got the death penalty drug.

Now they make it more affordable and all that good stuff.

But so that's there are mechanisms by which parents are notified or guardians, I should say if there it's a certain trigger.

Right.

Maybe five days.

And there is actually i that statute that was enacted, took effect in July, just las month, that there is mechanism for a referral or notification, at least to local prosecutors who could if they wanted to and no one's going to want to.

So don't get alarmed.

Start the the criminal proceedings.

I mean, unless it' an egregious case of of neglect, to start something about promoting tardiness or failin to keep your kids in school.

But but the upshot of all of that is, hey, we just passed this.

Whether it's a hefty law or a minuscule law, it's just taking effect.

So let's, let's let's see what happens, especially since you have a trend that's promoted, suggesting that it' moving in the right direction.

Yeah.

To that point I mean, the notification part, which is the newest thing in that legislation, a lot of the legislation kind of reinforced what was already on the books.

But that notification piece, how important can that b in trying to curb this problem?

I mean, it's certainly a difference, but, you know, with actions like that, I kind of agree with your point that like, might as well see, like what happens before you make some more changes.

Lawmakers were really focused on this heading into the last session, and rightfully so.

Some of the data they've just gotten was a bombing in some rural schools.

One out of every two kids wa considered chronically absent.

That's I mean, that's you talk about if they can't read after third grade, well, if they're not there in the first place, that really.

Does interfere with their ability to Iearn.

Mean this kind of this kind of data.

Is it again, enough that the legislature can go, okay, let's let's let them keep doing what they do?

I think so, because I think the mechanism of basically calling the parent or guardian in when it's five day sends a pretty chilling message because it's not simply criminal prosecution which is probably very unlikely, but they could also institute a chin's, petition and arguably, i take the child out of the home and that can be really have a, an effect on making the parents seem to be better stewards over the attendance of their children.

And some of this is down to the schools themselves and what resources they have.

But it feels like they ar focusing more and it is working.

Yeah.

Let's flip the conversation from the last segment as head and say this.

This should be it, this this should be local.

This should be the school doing this at the state, the state setting the standard.

But the locals are going to the local school districts have to enforce it because.

They understand it.

Understand individual situation, understand why.

Why is this happening?

What's going on.

Yeah.

All right.

That's Indiana Week in Review for this week.

Our panel is Democrat An DeLaney Republican Mike O'Brien Schwantes of Indiana Lawmakers and Leslie Bonilla Muñiz of the Indiana Capital Chronicle.

You can find Indiana Weekend Reviews, podcast and episodes at wfyi.org/IWIR or on the PBS app.

I'm Brandon Smith of Indiana Public Broadcasting.

Join us next time, because a lo can happen in an Indiana week.

The opinions expressed are.

Solely.

Those of the panelist.

Indiana Week in Review is a wfyi production in association with Indiana's public broadcasting stations.