By Dale Chu
For anyone who thinks education reform sleeps with the fishes, Indiana offers a useful rebuttal. Under the capable direction of Education Secretary Katie Jenner, the Hoosier State has reasserted itself as a national leader on accountability and systemwide reform. From overhauling high school diplomas to pushing the envelope on what it means for a student to be truly ready for the real world, Indiana has pursued an ambitious vision that extends well beyond tweaking around the margins. Its new A–F framework—part of the state’s waiver request that is awaiting federal approval—has also drawn sharp criticism from national advocacy groups, particularly over its move to incorporate additional metrics alongside test scores. Katie, for her part, has remained unapologetic, arguing that the goal is to measure what actually matters for students rather than what is easiest to count. As an adopted Hoosier myself, I wanted to spend more time digging into both the philosophy and the politics behind the shift. I recently spoke with Katie about all of it, and here’s what she had to say.
Dale Chu: Indiana’s new A-F system has been a long time coming. Kudos to you, Katie, for standing it back up. If you had to reduce the new A-F to a few sentences, what would you say it’s optimizing for?
Katie Jenner: The system optimizes for what Hoosiers said matters for graduates: academic mastery in reading and math, plus access to work-based learning experiences, credentials of value, and essential skills including communication, collaboration, work ethic, digital literacy, financial literacy, and civic literacy. Indiana created the Indiana GPS framework and committed to measuring these outcomes rather than just creating a profile of a graduate to hang on the wall. The approach is: if we can measure it, we measure it and set goals; if we don’t know how to measure it but it matters, we must figure it out.
Dale: For better or worse, the prior A-F system was based largely on state test scores. What trade-offs were involved with adding knowledge, skills, and experiences?
Katie: At the end of the day, I don’t believe we made any trade-offs. The system is much improved and long overdue. The goal was to understand “N is 1,” looking at each individual student across the board rather than numerator-denominator calculations that lose students. Every child comes with unique talents and abilities, and the school’s role is to pull those out and maximize them. The pushback we’ve had, I’ll take it all day every day, but I think we made the right decision for Indiana.
Dale: What do you think of as the ultimate anchor in the A-F system when there are multiple measures in play?
Katie: In elementary and middle school grades, assessment of math skills and English language arts/reading is still the primary anchor. However, many of the multiple measures are also assessment-related, not just the ILEARN test [i.e., the state summative exam]. Examples include: ILEARN U.S. government test for civics, attendance [more on that below], proficiency in social studies and science, WIDA for English learners, and growth to proficiency. The majority of multiple measures remain assessment-based because the country hasn’t yet figured out how to measure skills at scale beyond multiple-choice tests, though Indiana recognizes this needs to change.
Dale: As you move toward a single, unified accountability system, there’s been a lot of discussion about compliance details (e.g., including attendance as a metric). Where do you think people are over-reading those issues versus identifying real design risks?
Katie: Attendance was intentionally included because “what gets measured gets done.” Nearly every state is focused on getting kids to school, and Indiana’s chronic absenteeism data looks better than the national average because of this focus. Indiana has data showing that if students attend 94% of the time, they are statistically more likely to master key subject areas. Students chronically absent in third grade are significantly less likely to be readers. Attendance represents lead data (what informs outcomes) versus lag data (outcomes already achieved). Business and industry leaders identified attendance as demonstrating work ethic. We wanted schools, parents, and families focused on this because we know the advantage it provides for long-term outcomes.
Indiana also very intentionally wanted to capture N is 1 and believes every child can succeed. The state is not seeing the full talents and abilities of students unless looking at them across the board. This is technically tricky for data systems, and other states’ systems might not be up to par yet, but Indiana emphasized this importance and we wanted to lean in because it’s the right thing to do.
The Indiana GPS dashboard disaggregates every student population by outcome, with an advanced feature allowing comparison between different populations (e.g., free/reduced lunch students vs. English learner students). Indiana is very transparent about data. The connection between accountability and our waiver is also important: when you’re clear on desired outcomes and progress, flexibility is needed in how to invest in individual students to get them there.
Dale: What has your modeling suggested about how A-F grades might be distributed across schools in the state? [In 2012, under the old system, 41% of schools earned A’s while 7% earned F’s.]
Katie: Letter grades will be available later this year, marking the first time in several years Indiana has had them. This is a completely different and more difficult accountability model, so this will be “year zero” for schools. The letter grades will show this is year zero, giving schools a starting point to improve from. A superintendent from northern Indiana was quoted saying if he’s not an A in year zero, he will be within a couple years. That’s the competitive spirit Indiana wants to drive.
Dale: What would success look like a couple years down the road, and what should other states take from Indiana’s approach?
Katie: Success requires a full systems-level approach. Indiana is impacting every major system: overhauled standards across the board, overhauled assessment with checkpoints, reinstated high-quality curricular materials (e.g., required list for reading), ensured K-12 funding formula has outcomes attached to significant dollars, totally overhauled the diploma system and career-connected education in high school, and overhauled accountability. It has to be a full look at improving the education system, which means getting rid of some things to focus on what Indiana deems really matters.
Dale: If another state wanted to borrow from Indiana, can they pick and choose or do they need the full approach?
Katie: It has to be a full system shift. Taking just one element would be nibbling around the edges. Indiana’s window of opportunity has been wide open with alignment from two governors, Speaker of the House, President Pro Tem of the Senate, educators, superintendents, principals, teachers, counselors, parents, families, and philanthropy. This allowed quick movement with sustainability due to broad buy-in.
This interview has been lightly edited for clarity.
***
One thing that struck me after my conversation with Katie is how much of the debate around Indiana’s new A-F sits in the tension between aspiration and execution. Unfortunately, we didn’t have enough time to dig into some of the sharper criticisms of Indiana’s model (something I’d like to explore with Katie more directly in a future conversation). It’s also worth underscoring that Katie was careful not to present Indiana’s approach as a cut-and-paste template for other states; context, capacity, and political alignment matter.
Her answer that there were no tradeoffs stood out to me, if only because accountability design usually involves some degree of tradeoff. Expanding beyond state test scores inevitably creates new questions about consistency, comparability, and unintended consequences. That same humility should apply to critics, too. Much of the national pushback has focused on technical design questions rather than actual student outcomes, and there is always a risk of missing the forest for the trees when the debate gets too wonky. At the same time, it’s striking that state leaders who attempt to improve imperfect systems often draw far more fire than those content to fly low, where weak outcomes and low expectations too often escape the same scrutiny. Is it any wonder many state chiefs conclude that the safest political strategy is simply to do nothing?
I understand the skepticism around moving beyond standardized tests. I’m the first to joke that state tests are the worst form of assessment except for all the others. But my read is that Katie sees this less as a finished product than as a first step. No one gets accountability perfectly right out of the gate, and it would not surprise me if Indiana continues refining and adjusting the model in the years ahead. We also frankly won’t know how well, or poorly, the new A–F system works until the results come out this fall. That alone argues for a bit of restraint before rushing to judgment.