It is time to CALL your house members!
Call the Indiana House Switchboard
317-232-9600 or 1-800-382-9841.
OPPOSE HB 1337 -- Acceleration of Public School Takeover
HB 1001 Biennial Budget and School Funding Formula
Contact Your State Representative and Members of the House Education Committee ASAP to support additional assistance for Indiana's community-based public schools -- the schools at which parents of more than 1 million Hoosier students choose their children's learning opportunities. This proposal projects more than a $2 billion surplus at the end of 2015 -- there is room for a deeper commitment to our public schools from the state.
Note: CPI inflation rate is projected to be 1.8% in 2014 as projected by Global Insights during its revenue forecast presentation, Dec. 17, 2012.
It is recognized that the House Republicans increased funding to K-12 education from the Governor’s original proposal of 1% and a 2nd year 1% for high performing districts.
House Republicans today offered an approximate 2% (FY 2014) and 1% (FY 2015) statewide average increase under the school funding formula.
The chief component driving funding is the per student foundation amount. Under this proposal, the foundation is increased from $4405 to $4547. An increase here is always good. However, it must also be noted that the foundation amount was $4825 in 2009 and under this proposal is projected to be $4584 in FY2015—still $241 per student less than 2009 levels. The effects of the cuts in 2010 are lasting.
Here is the link to the formula run. Please check your school district. Look at regular education funding first. Then check total funding columns. FY 2014 is year 1; FY 2015 is year 2.
http://www.in.gov/legislative/house_republicans/pdfs/2013/TSF2014_2015.pdf
The tale of the tape on this formula run is as follows:
- For regular education funding in the 1st year, almost 30% of districts lose funds from one year to the next.
- About 70% of school districts will not exceed projected inflation.
- For regular education funding for the 2nd year, about 40% of districts lose funds from one year to the next.
PRIMETIME funding under the formula is eliminated and moved into the foundation.
It must also be noted that the proposal offers:
(1) no new funding for textbook assistance (straight-lined since 2008);
(2) no new funding for remediation programs to help students identified through standardized testing as needing additional assistance (Indiana provided a total of $2.9 million statewide in 2012 for all of K-8 remediation);
(3) no new funding for early intervention/reading programs;
(4) no funding for professional development for teachers; and
(5) no new funding for English language learner programs (Indiana provides $95 per student even though the budget calls for $200 per student—the amounts are reduced due to demand exceeding the appropriation).
This budget adds the following funding components to what already is applied against the FY cap—which serves to trigger a pro-rata reduction to all school districts if the appropriation is insufficient to fund the obligations:
- private school voucher distributions;
- the Mitch Daniels early graduation scholarships; and
- the FDK grants.
- However, the manner in which complexity dollars are calculated changes in the proposal from students who qualify under the free- and reduced-price lunch program to students who qualify for free textbooks. The rationale here is to more easily audit who is qualifying under the complexity component.
- Analysis is being done to determine the effect district-by-district.
- The last time special education per student grants were increased was 2008.
- The career and technical grants per student amounts have never been increased since their inception in 2003.
The formula run suggests a $15 million increase in expenditures to fund new charter schools each of the next 2 years.
Selected Other Provisions in the Budget
Provides $16.7 million in performance awards for certain school districts.
Gives the Education Roundtable control of and funding for the following new initiatives and funds:
- Indiana Works Council: $1 million (2014) and $5 million (2015)
- Dropout Prevention: $6 million (2014) and $6 million (2015)
- STEM teacher recruitment grant fund $5 million (2014) and $5 million (2015)
- Innovation Fund $2.5 million (2014) and $2.5 million (2015)
Makes school funding a fiscal year distribution (rather than CY) and uses the 2nd formula count to alter certain funding and gives the SBE certain power to adjust student counts (ADM).
Virtual schools become entitled to receive career and technical grants, academic honors grants, complexity grants, and FDK grants. In HB 1338, virtual schools funding goes from 87.5% of foundation to 90% of foundation, a 14% increase in per pupil funding.
Under HB 1003, Indiana’s voucher program is expanded and, according to budget agency staff, the cost over the biennium will be an additional $20 million.
Contemplates a 13th check to TRF retirees; not a COLA.
The proposal does not include the Governor’s 10% income tax cut but retains the automatic taxpayer rebate and:
- Leaves $1.9 billion surplus at FY2014 end (12% of projected budget); and
- Leaves $2.1 billion surplus at FY 2015 end (almost 14% of projected budget)
OPPOSE HB 1337 -- Acceleration of Public School Takeover
NOTE: The Chamber of Commerce and the ISTA have agreed on the fact that Indiana’s current A-F school grading policy is wrong-headed.
HB 1337 does the following:
(1) Sets up a framework (with few details provided) for a new A-F grading system for both schools and entire school districts. Under HB 1337, the State board of Education and the Education Roundtable will come up with details of the new system.
(2) Accelerates the sanctions that “failing” schools and school districts would be subject to and gives broad authority to special management teams (SMTs) to operate the schools they take over. SMTs are not “teams” per se. They are companies that enter into contracts to take over public schools.
(3) For school accountability, once these takeover schools have been released from their SMT because they have achieved the goals that were developed in their turnaround plan as approved by the state board of education (which are not the same accountability goals that apply to other public schools), the school becomes an “independent school” and is assigned its own state identification number (and therefore is funded independently from the school funding formula, like a charter school). These independent schools are governed by a board consisting of members that ultimately must be approved by the state board of education.
(4) For school district accountability, sets up a school district receivership process that would dissolve a local public school board and replace it with a receiver designated by the state (board of education). Examples of receivers are mayors, county councils, town managers, etc. Once under receivership, the receiver has broad authority to do all kinds of things (cancel contracts, convert schools to charter schools, close schools, and most anything in-between).
There were a couple of amendments to HB 1337 that Chairman Behning (R-Indianapolis) described this morning, but it is unclear at this point where all of this is headed:
(1) Instead of lumping the same accountability consequences to a school or district regardless of whether they are in the bottom or next-to-the-bottom category, his amendment will trigger accountability for schools placed in the bottom category only. He indicated there may be some additional state interventions for schools/districts in next-to-the-bottom category—but details were not shared yet.
(2) He also indicated that there will be a provision to enable a takeover school to return to the public school district (under certain conditions) instead of forever becoming an “independent” school. Details on this concession are unknown.
The basic premise of HB 1337 is, of course, still very problematic. Let’s face it, the state board of education and the roundtable spent years coming up with the current A-F grading system that nobody likes. More transparency, more oversight, more direction, and more time is needed to ensure that Indiana is focusing on the most appropriate metrics.
ISTA’s position is that we should be working on the details of the system first and together and in a transparent way—let’s let stakeholders have a look-see and a chance to weigh in before handing it all back to the state board of education to try again and before we engage in the rest of the bill which accelerates the prospect of new takeover schools run by companies seeking financial gain.
Before marching headlong into more and deeper consequences for already-challenged communities and creating more punishment—let’s push the “pause” button and get some things right.
Please contact, once again, every member of House Education and YOUR REPRESENTATIVE and YOUR SENATOR to express your opposition to HB 1337—The Acceleration of Public School Takeover bill.
Some other features of HB 1337 (condensed version):
- With regard to school takeovers, SMTs may exercise any authority granted by the SBE.
- With regard to school district takeovers, the receiver may make any management, personnel, or policy changes it wants (including canceling, modifying, or renegotiating existing contracts) and if any action it wants to take is inconsistent with other laws, the other laws do not govern.
- Teachers and staff in these takeover schools are employed by the SMT but the law specifically states that they are not required to employ them under the same contracts applicable to all public school teachers/administrators.
- Teachers and staff are not guaranteed participation in TRF/PERF.
- No collective bargaining for teachers in takeover schools.
- No teacher input on health insurance (they get whatever is provided by SMT or the state).
- Repeals the law that allows for local graduation qualifying exam waivers (to enable certain students who do achieve other benchmarks to graduate) and replaces the local waiver with an (as yet undefined) state board of education waiver.
- Repeals the laws that allow for locally-determined exemptions to CORE 40 for certain students.
- A more technical point: Redefines “affected students” in the law so that a takeover school would be entitled to funding for students it is not actually teaching. NOTE: This is in response to a recent Indiana Court Case that decided in favor of IPS’ interpretation of the law, which interpretation justifiably limited funding that would be available to takeover schools to only those funds actually attributable to the students who enroll in the takeover school (and not attributable to the entire student pool that happened to be in the school when it was designated as a takeover. In the IPS case, this amounted to $7.3 million). Money follows the student…. unless we are talking about a takeover school.
- RATIONALE TO OPPOSE:
- HB 1337 attempts to accelerate takeovers and other extreme consequences before a solid, transparent, fair, defensible school/school district grading system is developed.
- HB 1337 adds academic receiverships of entire school districts, accelerates the consequences on schools and districts in shorter time frames—creates “independent schools” that will be governed by boards heavily reliant upon SBE influence—after literally a few minutes of testimony. We’ve seen this approach before. It doesn’t work.
- HB 1337 removes direct voter/school board accountability and replaces it with SBE/private company shareholder influence.
- This is (once again) putting the cart before the horse. The thirst to take over Indiana’s public schools by private, profit-making interest is apparently pretty unquenchable.
Robert Behning (R-Indianapolis), h91@in.gov
Rhonda Rhoads (R-Corydon), h70@in.gov
Lloyd Arnold (R-Huntingburg), h74@in.gov
Woody Burton (R-Whiteland), h58@in.gov
Edward Clere (R-New Albany), h72@in.gov
Dale Devon (R-Granger), h5@in.gov
Todd Huston (R-Fishers), h37@in.gov
Jim Lucas (R-Seymour), h69@in.gov
Jeff Thompson (R-Lizton), h28@in.gov
Vernon Smith (D-Gary), h14@in.gov
Kreg Battles (D-Vincennes), h45@in.gov
Sue Errington (D-Muncie), h34@in.gov
Shelli Vandenburgh (D-Crown Point), h19@in.gov
No comments:
Post a Comment