Authors: Rep. Bob Behning (R-Indianapolis), Rep. Jeff Thompson (R-Lizton) and Rep. Sheila Klinker (D-West Lafayette)
Sponsors: Sen. Dennis Kruse (R-Auburn), Sen. Carlin Yoder (R-Goshen), Sen. Scott Schneider (R-Indianapolis), Sen. Karen Tallian (D-Portage) and Sen. Jim Banks (R-Columbia City)

Summary: Moves career and technical education to the Department of the Education (DOE) and assigns oversight to the State Board of Education. Moves adult education to the Department of Workforce Development (DWD) and assigns oversight to the State Workforce Innovation Council (SWIC). Assigns to the SWIC responsibility for the GED diploma program and the planning and implementation of postsecondary career and technical education.

Chamber Position: Support

Status: Signed into law by Governor Mitch Daniels on April 1; effective immediately.

Update/Chamber Action: The issues addressed in this bill have been discussed, in one way or another, for most of the last decade. The specific proposals were highlighted in a set of policy recommendations commissioned in 2009 by the Indiana Chamber Foundation and adopted subsequently by a bipartisan legislative study committee. Yet, until this year, the proposal could not even get a vote in both houses. So it’s a real mark of progress that the votes this year were unanimous and that the bill was one of the first to reach the governor’s desk.

Much of the credit for this success goes to the staff at DWD. They began laying the groundwork several months ago and helped demonstrate to both legislators and adult education providers, who previously had opposed these proposals fiercely, that the overhaul would be a positive development. The Indiana Chamber is proud to have helped in raising these issues and in ushering this bill through the Legislature. We’re also looking forward to our continued work with DWD to implement this overhaul and to realize the promising opportunities to better serve Indiana’s adult learners.

Authors: Speaker Brian Bosma (R-Indianapolis), Rep. Bob Behning (R-Indianapolis), Rep. Mary Ann Sullivan (D-Indianapolis) and Rep. Cindy Noe (R-Indianapolis)
Sponsor: Sen. Dennis Kruse (R-Auburn)

Summary: Allows private universities to serve as charter school authorizers.  Creates the Indiana Charter School Board to serve as a statewide authorizer. (Continues authorizing authority for state universities and the Indianapolis mayor.) Makes unused and underutilized public school facilities available for charter school use. Eliminates limits on charter schools approved by the Indianapolis mayor and on virtual charter schools. Increases funding for virtual charter schools from 80% of average state tuition support to 85%. Cancels interest payments on loans from the state that charter schools have acquired as the result of delayed tuition payments. Makes additional changes. 

Chamber Position: Support
Status: The Senate Appropriations Committee made additional changes this week that would increase funding for virtual charter schools to 85% of the state average rather than 90%, as proposed originally. Additional amendments were made to adjust how charter schools receive first semester funds (an ongoing concern that has caused charter schools to incur substantial operating loans) and to improve accountability for charter schools. The committee approved the amended bill on an 8-2 vote, with Sen. Earline Rogers (D-Gary) and Sen. Karen Tallian (D-Portage) joining Republicans in support of the bill; it is now eligible for consideration by the full Senate. 

Update/Chamber Action:  The Indiana Chamber continued to work much of this week in helping to develop an accountability component for charter school authorizers that would raise performance expectations without putting charter schools at risk of future political swings. We believe that the amendment adopted this week accomplishes that balance. As the bill continues to progress, we join Speaker Bosma, the author of this bill, in wanting to see the triggers for conversion charter schools improved. Those triggers, we believe, should focus on some super-majority of parents in the school, rather than a focus on teachers who often do not live in the school boundaries, do not send children to the school and do not pay taxes in the district. We also note some continuing frustration with a small minority of legislators who remain unwilling to acknowledge that charter schools are public schools and who continue to portray these schools as siphoning funds from "real" public schools.  Nonetheless, we continue to be pleased that this substantial bill is progressing and will continue to work with legislative leaders, the Indiana Department of Education and other charter school supporters to continue improving and advancing the bill. 

Bill # and Title: SB 1002 – Charter Schools
Authors: Speaker of the House Brian Bosma (R-Indianapolis), Rep. Bob Behning (R-Indianapolis) and Rep. Mary Ann Sullivan (D-Indianapolis)

Summary: Allows private universities and mayors of second-class cities to serve as charter school authorizers. Creates the Indiana Charter School Board to serve as a statewide authorizer.  (Continues authorizing authority for state universities and the Indianapolis mayor.) Makes unused and underutilized public school facilities available for charter school use. Eliminates limits on charter schools approved by the Indianapolis mayor and on virtual charter schools. Increases funding for virtual charter schools from 80% of average state tuition support to 90%. Cancels interest payments on loans from the state that charter schools have acquired as the result of delayed tuition payments. Makes additional changes.

Chamber Position: Support

Status: House Education Committee considered 15 amendments out of 30 that were filed. Three amendments were accepted, including a substantial amendment developed by the co-authors and two additional amendments offered by Democrats. After eight hours of testimony and debate – five hours last week and three additional hours this week – the committee voted 8-5, along party lines, to recommend the bill’s passage. It is now eligible for consideration by the full House.

Update/Chamber Action: Despite the partisan vote from committee members, it certainly cannot be suggested that this bill has not had extensive consideration and debate. Nonetheless, House Democrats offered a Minority Committee report when the committee action was delivered to the full House. That effort failed, but not before a contentious floor debate in which Rep. Greg Porter (D-Indianapolis) and Rep. Pat Bauer (D-South Bend) portrayed the charter bill as an attempt to undermine collective bargaining. (In reality, the bill allows teachers in charter schools to bargain collectively if they so choose; but most charter teachers choose not to join a union.) This bill is likely to draw dozens of proposed amendments and a long, contentious debate as it moves to the full House. The Indiana Chamber will continue working with the bill’s authors and other charter school supporters to analyze amendments, fend off detrimental changes and drive the bill to final passage.  Meanwhile, we are pleased to note the steadfast support of Rep. Sullivan, who was the only Democrat to buck her caucus on the Minority Committee report. We also noted this editorial from Democrat Mayor Tom McDermott of Hammond, who has called for the bill’s passage.

To be certain, this effort is just beginning – and lots of vested interests are lining up to defeat the proposals. Most impacted are the schools of education that, according to several national education leaders, have created an ineffective training system that is in need of significant overall. But since "overhaul" means, in many ways, that their monopoly on education training would be loosened, the state’s schools of education are working overtime to defeat this proposal.

So far, the schools of education have dominated these discussions; but as the rule-making process goes forward, there will be much better opportunity to hear from the consumers of this system, including employers, parents, school administrators, school board members and even teachers themselves. The Indiana Chamber will stay on top of all developments and will keep our members informed through this and other outlets. In the meantime, you can learn more about the proposed changes in this brief summary document.

What are your thoughts on the proposal? Feel free to share in the comments section or let me know at dredelman@indianachamber.com.

On October 6, the Indiana Chamber will host the Indiana premiere of "2 Million Minutes: The 21st Century Solution," a sequel to the first film that highlights an open enrollment school in the U.S. that is teaching "average" children at an extraordinarily high academic level. This school, located in a largely low-income area, helps demonstrate that American students are capable of competing academically with the best in the world if given the right curriculum, the right teachers and the right inspiration and expectations. Learn more and view a short trailer for the film.

The Indiana premiere will be held on October 6 at 11:30 a.m. in the Indiana Chamber Conference Center. Compton will introduce the film and will lead a brief conversation following its showing. Lunch will also be provided. This is a free event but space is limited and reservations are required.

To learn more, send an e-mail to Amy Elifritz at aelifritz@indianachamber.com or call (317) 264-6865.

It is a myth that suburban and charter schools are favored by the state budget that was just adopted, while Indianapolis Public Schools and other urban districts "took it on the chin,” as the Indianapolis Star article elsewhere on this page phrases it.

In reality, the winners of this state budget are overwhelmingly urban districts like IPS. Sure, some of those districts will face funding cuts; but those cuts are disproportionately small compared to their losses in enrollment. Conversely, growing districts will receive increases, but those increases are disproportionately small compared to their increases in enrollment.

IPS, which is projected to lose nearly 4,000 students over the next two years, will start with $8,580 per student, or $9,429 when federal funds are included. Over the next two years, those amounts rise to $9,014 and $10,254, respectively. (These numbers include all state funding but do not include funds from property taxes).

That’s an increase of five percent in base funding and 8.2 percent when federal funds are included. Cumulatively, that means that continuing students in IPS will receive an increase of more than $13.6 million in baseline funding and more than $26.5 million when federal funds are included.

Contrast that with Hamilton Southeastern, which is projected to gain more than 1,600 students. The district starts with only $5,762 per student and just $5,784, including federal funds. Over the next two years, those funding levels actually fall to $5,701 and $5,772, respectively.

That’s a decline of 1.1 percent in base funding and 0.2 percent when federal funds are included. Cumulatively, Hamilton Southeastern students will lose more than $1 million in baseline funding or just under $300,000 including federal funds.

By the logic of urban school leaders, these enrollment changes are irrelevant. Based solely on changes to district-level funding, they suggest that urban districts will "suffer" while suburban districts and charter schools will be "the winners."

Where does that logic end? If IPS had lost half its students and Hamilton Southeastern had doubled its enrollment, would urban school leaders insist that each of their budgets remain unchanged?

Consider this from another perspective: IPS students will start the current budget period with funding levels that are 132 percent of the state average or 140 percent when federal funds are included.

Over the next two years, those levels will rise to 137 percent and 148 percent, respectively.

Meanwhile, Hamilton Southeastern students start with funding that equals 89 percent of the state average, or 86 percent when federal funds are included. Those levels will actually fall to 87 percent and 84 percent, respectively. So the urban districts start with far more money than the state average and their advantage over suburban schools actually grows.

Much of this disparity in funding is driven by historical mechanisms in our funding formula that were designed to protect districts with declining enrollment from losing funds. The Department of Education estimates that this year our state will pay districts for more than 16,000 students they no longer educate, costing more than $30 million.

That approach might have been a luxury that the state could afford in better financial times; but it would be irresponsible to do that today. As 30-plus states are facing cuts for K-12 education — some by double-digit percentages — Indiana’s school leaders ought to be grateful for the fiscal management that has protected them from the same fate. Focusing on students, rather than districts, is a continuation of sound fiscal stewardship.

The Indiana Chamber agrees with those who have called for a comprehensive review of our state’s school funding formula. We also agree with those who suggest that urban districts need more money per student to address special challenges of their students.

The overall focus should be on students, not districts. Urban school leaders are working hard to keep us away from that focus, and unfortunately, the Indianapolis Star’s coverage of this issue feeds right into their hands.

Derek Redelman is vice president of education and workforce development policy for the Indiana Chamber of Commerce.

Where does that logic end? If IPS had lost half its students and Hamilton Southeastern had doubled its enrollment, would urban school leaders insist that each of their budgets remain unchanged?

Consider this from another perspective: IPS students will start the current budget period with funding levels that are 132 percent of the state average or 140 percent when federal funds are included.

Over the next two years, those levels will rise to 137 percent and 148 percent, respectively.

Meanwhile, Hamilton Southeastern students start with funding that equals 89 percent of the state average, or 86 percent when federal funds are included. Those levels will actually fall to 87 percent and 84 percent, respectively. So the urban districts start with far more money than the state average and their advantage over suburban schools actually grows.

Much of this disparity in funding is driven by historical mechanisms in our funding formula that were designed to protect districts with declining enrollment from losing funds. The Department of Education estimates that this year our state will pay districts for more than 16,000 students they no longer educate, costing more than $30 million.

That approach might have been a luxury that the state could afford in better financial times; but it would be irresponsible to do that today. As 30-plus states are facing cuts for K-12 education — some by double-digit percentages — Indiana’s school leaders ought to be grateful for the fiscal management that has protected them from the same fate. Focusing on students, rather than districts, is a continuation of sound fiscal stewardship.

The Indiana Chamber agrees with those who have called for a comprehensive review of our state’s school funding formula. We also agree with those who suggest that urban districts need more money per student to address special challenges of their students.

The overall focus should be on students, not districts. Urban school leaders are working hard to keep us away from that focus, and unfortunately, the Indianapolis Star’s coverage of this issue feeds right into their hands.

At the heart of CEEP’s report is the short-sighted suggestion that charter schools in Indiana are performing no better than traditional public schools.

To draw that conclusion, the report ignores the academic starting point of charter school students and notes only that charter school students are passing ISTEP at similar rates as traditional public schools in the same geographic area.

Yet, it has already been well-documented – and inexcusably ignored by CEEP – that most charter schools enroll the poorest performing students from the district in which they are located. It is the student who is struggling whose parents seek an alternative, not the student who is already doing well. Thus, if the ISTEP pass rates for charter schools match the districts in which they are located, then the more important story is that charter schools are showing greater success with students who did not do well in their former schools.

CEEP’s report also includes several charts on funding levels that are guaranteed to add more confusion rather than clearing up misperceptions. For example, one prominent chart compares general fund revenues and suggests that charter schools are better funded than traditional public schools. That conclusion, left for the readers to infer, can only be made by ignoring that: 1) charter schools’ funding is based on the district in which they are located and they are therefore no better funded than surrounding schools; 2) charter schools have been formed mostly in lower-performing urban districts that are funded well above average state funding; and 3) charter schools receive general fund dollars ONLY and do not get any funding for capital projects, debt service or transportation, as do traditional public schools.

As countless other studies have already noted, charter schools are each unique; thus, it doesn’t make much sense to compare charter schools as a whole to all other traditional public schools. Yet, there is already tremendous evidence that charter school students – especially those in urban areas – do show greater academic gains, on average, than do their counterparts in traditional public schools. It is this question of growth that should dominate these discussions; yet, the CEEP report effectively ignores that issue and does little more than provide a couple of new talking points to those who have little understanding for the issue and to those whose avowed opposition to charter schools outweighs all else, including what’s best for individual students. 

Over the next several months, we can expect to hear at least some debate on which of these gentlemen will best carry on the 16-year legacy of Reed. School leaders, who are largely happy with Reed, will be looking for someone who can continue on her role as chief defender of all that is good in public schools. Meanwhile, those of us interested in reform will be looking for a candidate who can return leadership and new ideas to the office. 

It is difficult to say what Reed and her supporters will tout as her accomplishments. She opposed most of the leading reforms that occurred during her tenure, including: revision of our state standards, reform of the ISTEP test and establishment of Core 40 as a graduation requirement. She was also largely silent during consideration of charter school legislation and then nearly killed the movement in its infancy with her administration of charter school funding. 

In the absence of other leadership, Gov. Daniels has tried desperately during his first term to provide substantial deregulation for our schools, to force greater financial efficiencies and to raise the dialogue on teacher quality. As Reed has been painfully silent on these issues, many of us are hoping that a new superintendent will help lead on these and other issues that are critical to the future of our schools. 

Perhaps most importantly, many — both in education and outside — are looking forward to a much improved Department of Education. Multiple stories by the Indianapolis Star and others have highlighted the dismal job the department has done on managing critical data such as high school graduation rates. But as highlighted by outside reviews by independent groups like Crowe Chizek, the problems with data are just the beginning of a management overhaul that is long overdue. 

The Indiana Chamber does not endorse candidates in the state superintendent race, but we will be watching carefully what each of these candidates has to say. Nobody can question the passion with which Reed has performed her job for the last four terms, but for the sake of our state, the next superintendent needs to transform that passion to ideas and leadership. 

Let us know your thoughts in the comment section.

For years, Hoosier parents have been allowed to pay tuition, at a rate determined by a formula in state statute, to attend another public school outside of their home district. That rate has been based, approximately, on the amount of per-pupil general fund revenues that have been covered by local property taxes.  For most districts, that amount has been several thousand dollars per student. 

But under HEA 1001, the state will begin paying all of a district’s general fund revenues in January of 2009.  Thus, when schools calculate the amount of local property taxes to determine parent contribution under a "cash transfer" option, that amount will be zero or something close to zero. 

Some school administrators, most of whom had no objections to the transfer policy when parents had to pay thousands of dollars to do it, are now going bonkers. Indeed, the Indiana Association of Public School Superintendents may consider a new policy statement this summer that would make it "unethical" for members of the association to accept transfer students. Other school administrators are already talking with legislators to seek their support in "fixing" this unintended outcome. 

Parents who are paying tuition under the current policy, along with those who may seek the option this fall, will need to continue paying the tuition level for the first half of the coming school year. But unless those who oppose parent options get their way in brow-beating superintendents to abandon the option, parents will find a much freer set of options starting in January of 2009.