Vic’s Statehouse Notes #67 February 25, 2011
Dear Friends,
Yesterday’s Indianapolis Star (Feb. 24th) listed eleven bills that House Democrats “have concerns about.” I have tracked four of these eleven bills on their journey through the House Education Committee: HB 1002, HB 1003, HB 1479, and HB 1584. Here are some details about these four bills that seem to be involved in the standoff:
House Bill 1002 – Charter School Expansion
In “Vic’s Notes #51-Jan. 21, 2011”, I detailed the testimony of 24 speakers in a five hour hearing, with 12 speaking for it and 12 speaking against it. It subsequently cleared the committee on a party line vote and was approved on third reading in the House, 59-37. Rep. Sullivan, a long time advocate for charter schools, coauthored the bill and was the only Democrat to vote for it. One Republican, Rep. Neese, voted against it. Dr. Bennett issued a press release announcing that the charter bill passed with bipartisan support. He might also have reported that it had bipartisan opposition.
The objection to the charter bill registered by the Indiana Coalition for Public Education was that it allowed private colleges and universities to be authorizers of charter schools. I and others in the ICPE believe that decisions committing public dollars to public charter schools must always be made by publicly elected or appointed entities, not by private college trustees who are not accountable to the public. It is bad public policy to let private entities determine the distribution of public money. Keep in mind, the authorizer gets to keep 3% of the public charter school tuition money for their trouble, so there is a financial incentive to push enrollment. Joel Hand, executive director of ICPE, gave strong testimony against allowing private colleges to be authorizers. In my own testimony, I argued the same point, saying that surely a new state charter board and many more mayors would expand charter schools enormously without the need to involve private colleges.
In a television interview, Kevin Brinegar, President of the Indiana Chamber of Commerce, said that only private colleges that had a School of Education would be allowed to authorize charter schools, but he was incorrect. The only restriction on private colleges is that they must be non-proprietary colleges, that is, not-for-profit colleges.
Interestingly in the long debate over second reading amendments, coauthor Rep. Sullivan sponsored the amendment to delete private colleges as authorizers. One might think that her months of faithful work with Speaker Bosma as a coauthor might give her enough respect to gain bipartisan support in ending this one highly divisive provision. It didn’t work. Her amendment attracted the support of only two Republicans, and it was soundly defeated. As HB 1002 now stands, any not-for-profit private college or university approved by the state board can authorize any number of charter schools.
House Bill 1003 – School Vouchers
Whether to privatize public education is the question of our generation. I absolutely oppose giving public tax dollars for private school tuition. House Bill 1003 is the tip of the spear for privatization, providing both private school vouchers and expanded private school tax credits. It would push privatization further than any other state has ever done, making Indiana “Exhibit #1” for undermining public education with privatization measures. It deserves to be on anybody’s list of bills to fight with fervor.
Faithful readers of “Vic’s Statehouse Notes” already know the irreparable harm that HB 1003 would do to public school students. Notes #52, #60, #62, #63, #64, #65 and #66 have focused on details of this bill. No more needs to be added here, except to say the latest talking points document against HB 1003 is attached for your use with legislators and colleagues.
House Bill 1479 – Turnaround Academies
In a normal legislative session – and this is clearly not a normal session – House Bill 1479 would be a centerpiece of debate and controversy. As the session has unfolded, it has received almost no attention. It would be the first legislative revision of Public Law 221, Indiana’s accountability system. PL221 was passed as a collaborative bipartisan measure in 1999. This revision is clearly not bipartisan.
Here are its major provisions:
1) Consequences including state take-over for schools in the lowest (F) category of PL221 would now apply to schools that have been in the lowest two categories (D or F). This change would immediately jump the number of schools eligible for state take-over from about 20 to about 220. There would no longer be any real difference between D schools and F schools. Both categories would get the same consequences. This bill would have the practical effect of reducing the number of PL 221 categories for school ratings from five to four: A,B,C and F.
2) The state could turn schools in these lowest categories over to Turnaround School Operators (TSO’s) under a contract for 5 years. The contract could also be renewed for 5 years.
3) Nothing in the bill prohibits Turnaround School Operators from being for-profit management companies. Joel Hand, executive director of ICPE, testified against allowing for-profit managers under this bill. Chairman Behning, in response, expressed support for for-profit companies in this arena.
It seems clear to me that with for-profit companies, the public never knows whether students are getting the funding they should get or whether the company is shorting the students to maximize profits for owners and shareholders. It is a fundamental, unsolvable problem with for-profit school management companies working with public school students and public school dollars: Isn’t any level of profit going to take money away that could be funding student programs? Private companies do not want all financial matters to be transparent to let the public know about their profit margin.
This is the point from the bill that the House Democrats seem to be focused on.
4) After the turnaround school is successfully released from the contract, HB 1479 would make it an independent school not linked to its original school district. This is a new concept, and it is hard to know what it would mean. The language on the General Assembly website still says it would be an “independent school corporation,” but an amendment from Chairman Behning last Monday (Feb. 21st) when the bill passed committee took out the concept of “corporation.” The committee approved the bill 8-3 on a party line vote.
Any bill that could create over 200 independent schools, a new concept, certainly deserves a high level of attention for a complete statewide discussion and debate.
House Bill 1584 – Deregulation
HB 1584 was a vehicle bill and has had a strange history under the radar. To this moment, if you go to HB 1584 on the General Assembly website and click on “latest printing”, it will simply tell you it is a vehicle bill, which means it has been filed as a blank shell for possible later use to insert new language. The language inserted originally allowed the state board of education to grant a waiver to any school for any statute except for a short list of protected statutes, all in the name of deregulation. Discussions were held about the vast scope of these waivers at a meeting few attended. The low attendance had to do with the fact that the meeting was announced at the end of a late Monday night floor session to be held the next morning. No vote was taken at that meeting.
Then by Monday morning (Feb. 21), Chairman Behning amended the bill to call for a study of deregulation to be completed by Nov. 1, 2011. To see the final version of the bill that the House Education Committee approved 9-2 on Feb. 21st, click on “Committee Report” on the General Assembly website information under HB 1584.
In this form, the bill certainly does not carry the incredible consequences that the other three bills carry.
I hope these notes will give you the information you need to discuss these matters with legislators and others in the Third House sessions this weekend and throughout the coming week. Keep up the good work of communicating with legislators during this crucial time!
Best wishes,
Vic Smith vic790@aol.com
INDIANA COALITION FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION
Friday, February 25, 2011
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Questions for so-called education reformers
Dr. Ed Eiler, Superintendent for the Lafayette School Corporation, recently paid for a full page ad in the
Lafayette Journal and Courier in support of public education and the issues we are dealing with right now
in the current State legislative session [worth qouting at length].
Privatization, vouchers, choice, and charter schools.
I am concerned about flight from the urban schools in Indiana that will result in an increase in the density and concentration of students living in poverty in our older cities. Any public policy that has that effect is unsound and will result in defacto segregation. Of equal concern is the possibility that students from rural schools will migrate to suburban schools. The reality is most school districts have a limited capacity to accept additional students. This will require school districts to implement selection criteria regarding who they will allow to enroll. While it would be possible to develop a limited number of neutral criteria such as allowing children of employees or students living within a specific geographic boundary, the potential for discriminatory policies is quite real if not on paper, then in implementation. In essence the state is enabling school districts to choose students. The parents who elect and are allowed to exercise the choice will be parents with the money to do so. If choice is to be a public policy, there could not be a worse form of choice. A far more defensible choice option would be to give students living in poverty (which should be defined as the threshold for free and reduced lunch, not the $101,982 for a family of four set forth in the Indiana School Scholarship Tax Program) who fail ISTEP the choice of where they go to school and require schools to provide transportation. This would have the effect of distributing poverty.
Present law holds the portent of substantial swings in enrollment. When combined with the volatility of sales tax revenue these circumstances will make it extremely difficult to plan, budget, and meet the needs of students.
There is also the question whether some schools will apply their cash transfer policies in a non-discriminatory fashion. It would be easy to deny some subsets of students. For example, this could hold true when a district has a reputation of providing excellent special education services. It would be very attractive for parents in neighboring districts to pay cash transfer to attend school in the district providing the better services. This raises the specter of overtaxing the resources of the district by being confronted with providing programs which are not adequately funded or merely not accepting the special education student as a cash transfer student. Of course there is the issue of athletics.
As in medicine the first litmus test for any public policy should be “do no harm”. A second test should be that the public policy should not generate greater problems than the problems the policy is designed to solve. In this case problems associated with urban districts with high poverty populations will make the problems of parents not being able to select the “best’ school pale by comparison. In part we are focusing on the wrong issue. The issue is how do we deliver quality education to all students? The bottom line is at present no proposal exists that creates an environment of fair competition.
There are a multitude of people in America with agendas. Not the least of which is greed and self-interest. There are people who believe they can make money in education through skimming the cream of the crop of students and those who will become richer by not having to support a public educational system. In America money buys influence and power. These motives should not drive educational decisions.
Currently a series of “documentary” style movies funded by voucher advocates including Waiting for Superman have painted a picture of a failing public school system in which no public educator is shown in anything but an unfavorable light, if at all, and charter schools are presented as the solution. (For a more complete analysis see Diane Ravitch’s, The Myth of Charter Schools, in the New York Times Review of Books.
Charter schools are not the panacea they are painted to be. Virtually every example of charters with substantial achievement results incorporates the ability of the charter to select students. Any school which is allowed to select students should be expected to outperform schools who are not allowed to select their students.
The foregoing notwithstanding, I believe there is a narrow niche charter schools could fill. They could serve as a safety net to ensure there is an educational alternative available for children who otherwise would not be receiving an education. That is in fact the reason the Lafayette School Corporation agreed to sponsor the one charter school it has sponsored.
There is a greater issue posed by privatization, vouchers, choice, and charter schools. The issue is much larger than the impact these policies may have on an individual school in a local community. The issue is one that will define who we are as a nation. Do we choose to be united or divided?
Vouchers cost taxpayers money because with vouchers the state has created two school systems, one private the other public. A study by Columbia University Professor Henry Levin concluded a national voucher plan would cost taxpayers nearly $33 billion additional dollars just to pay the tuition for students already in private schools. The Wisconsin Legislative Fiscal Bureau concluded that in Milwaukee where vouchers were offered, property taxes were higher than they would have been without a school choice program. Private school tuition does not cover the actual cost to educate students. While subsidies from other sources can be used to educate a select few children, such a model cannot be used for all students. Indiana’s solution is to fund vouchers and charter schools by taking money from existing public schools.
A United States Government Accounting Office study “found little or no difference in voucher and public school student’s performance.” In the vast majority of cases across the country voucher schools are not required to reveal student test results or give students the same tests required of public schools. The reality is private voucher schools are allowed to play by an entirely different set of rules than those imposed on public schools. They do not have to accept any child who wants to attend. What is the poverty at-risk student count, the number of students receiving free or reduced lunches, the number of limited English language, minority students, or special education students in the schools that want to tout their schools performance as better than public schools? True competition requires everyone to operate under the same set of rules. If that fails to occur, the idea that vouchers somehow introduce competition is intellectually dishonest. The current programs being discussed by policy makers and the public are not voucher plans. They are targeted assistance plans. Genuine choice requires every child be given the resources to make a free choice of where they attend school. This would require a huge investment of resources. Even if a portion of that money were directed towards our current public school system a vast majority of our children would benefit greatly.
Proponents of vouchers and privatization need to answer the following questions:
1. How will a system of private or charter schools do a better job of ensuring all children will have equal access to educational opportunity than the current system of public education?
2. What methods and techniques of instruction are used in private or charter schools that are better than those used in public schools? If there are some, for the good of the country don’t you think these should be shared with everyone?
3. What laws, rules, and regulations are private or charter schools exempted from that permit them to be more effective or efficient? If there are some and the nation is at risk, don’t you think all schools should be exempted from them?
The biggest problem confronting our world in the 21st century is and will remain the increasing schism between the haves and the have nots. Public schools help close that schism, not widen it. Public schools serve all children. Public schools try to teach respect for others and tolerance for differences. Public schools do not allow students to ignore content standards. Public schools aren’t about training children for a specific job at the expense of the arts. Public schools do not exist to make money for a select few. Public schools are about believing in all children and inspiring them to hope and dream.
Creativity and fresh thinking are not the sole purview of those in private or charter schools. If there are ideas that would benefit children, they need to be shared with everyone so that all children benefit. Our children are far too important for us to do otherwise.
During the last legislative session the legislature passed the Indiana School Scholarship Tax Program. Examination of the laws in other states underscores the significance of what is not contained in the Indiana School Scholarship Tax Program. There is no prohibition about the contribution directly benefiting the dependent of a donor. There is no language limiting the tax credit to a single parent of a child whose parents are divorced or separated. There is no prohibition in using the scholarships to fund the costs of teaching religious tenets or doctrines of worship. The program goes beyond providing scholarships only to people who qualify for free or reduced lunch.
It is clear the law was enacted to begin the process of funding private education. The law diminishes tax revenue available to the state. The law has the effect of attempting to remove the argument concerning government support of parochial schools by removing the government one step from the distribution of money directly to parochial schools. Given the nature of the income restrictions the law will advantage families of means, children already attending private schools, and children attending parochial schools.
Arguments about tax credits will continue. Should the state forego money that could be used by the state for other purposes including public schools and allow that money to fund private and parochial schools? Who should benefit from such a program? If a tax credit program is going to exist, what form should it take? Should it encompass a credit for all parents for educational expenses regardless of where a child attends school? Should the program be expanded to include funding educational reform and improvement initiatives? As a minimum, efforts need to be taken to amend the law to correct the lack of clear definitions and lack of transparency.
Some of the today’s most controversial proposals may have some merit. Seniority, the structure of the tenure system, and the scope of collective bargaining are legitimate topics for public policy discussions.
There are many educational reform proposals being made by state and national legislators. If these measures are built upon objective data and are modified by reasoned discourse, they should be implemented. If the intent of any proposal, however well disguised, is to serve political agendas, personal self interest, or is built upon popular prejudices supported by false claims, that reform should be discarded.
Public education is one of the pillars of our nation. As Horace Mann put it, “The public school is the greatest discovery made by man.” He believed education is best provided in schools embracing children of all religious, social, and ethnic backgrounds.
Do changes need to be made to our current system? The answer is yes. However, at present the environment of the discussion can be described best by Herman Wouk’s introduction to Caine Mutiny, “When in danger or in doubt, run in circles scream and shout.”
There is a substantive difference between opinion that is informed by peer reviewed research and uninformed opinion. Unfortunately in today’s world of viral media, uninformed opinion is given as much, if not more weight, than informed opinion. Discussion of educational reform must be informed, reflective, and respectful. I am concerned about the repercussions of some of the ill conceived proposals being offered. I am afraid they will create an even greater sense of confusion, frustration, turmoil, and will result in unwise public policies.
Addressing the challenge of educational reform requires far more words than this superficial treatment of the topic. It requires knowledgeable professionals engaged in research, study, discussion, and practice.
The idea of improvement and accountability are good ideas, but not wrapped in a package designed to degrade public education and spur privatization. I believe there is no better calling than nurturing, inspiring, and empowering children to learn. The task of educating our children is of vital importance to our future. The overwhelming majority of teachers and administrators chose the education profession to make a difference in the lives of children. I can only hope that everyone engaged in addressing the topic of educational reform will “Put Children First” as much as the overwhelming number of public school teachers and administrators do.
Edward E. Eiler, Ed.D., Supt, Lafayette School Corporation
Lafayette Journal and Courier in support of public education and the issues we are dealing with right now
in the current State legislative session [worth qouting at length].
Privatization, vouchers, choice, and charter schools.
I am concerned about flight from the urban schools in Indiana that will result in an increase in the density and concentration of students living in poverty in our older cities. Any public policy that has that effect is unsound and will result in defacto segregation. Of equal concern is the possibility that students from rural schools will migrate to suburban schools. The reality is most school districts have a limited capacity to accept additional students. This will require school districts to implement selection criteria regarding who they will allow to enroll. While it would be possible to develop a limited number of neutral criteria such as allowing children of employees or students living within a specific geographic boundary, the potential for discriminatory policies is quite real if not on paper, then in implementation. In essence the state is enabling school districts to choose students. The parents who elect and are allowed to exercise the choice will be parents with the money to do so. If choice is to be a public policy, there could not be a worse form of choice. A far more defensible choice option would be to give students living in poverty (which should be defined as the threshold for free and reduced lunch, not the $101,982 for a family of four set forth in the Indiana School Scholarship Tax Program) who fail ISTEP the choice of where they go to school and require schools to provide transportation. This would have the effect of distributing poverty.
Present law holds the portent of substantial swings in enrollment. When combined with the volatility of sales tax revenue these circumstances will make it extremely difficult to plan, budget, and meet the needs of students.
There is also the question whether some schools will apply their cash transfer policies in a non-discriminatory fashion. It would be easy to deny some subsets of students. For example, this could hold true when a district has a reputation of providing excellent special education services. It would be very attractive for parents in neighboring districts to pay cash transfer to attend school in the district providing the better services. This raises the specter of overtaxing the resources of the district by being confronted with providing programs which are not adequately funded or merely not accepting the special education student as a cash transfer student. Of course there is the issue of athletics.
As in medicine the first litmus test for any public policy should be “do no harm”. A second test should be that the public policy should not generate greater problems than the problems the policy is designed to solve. In this case problems associated with urban districts with high poverty populations will make the problems of parents not being able to select the “best’ school pale by comparison. In part we are focusing on the wrong issue. The issue is how do we deliver quality education to all students? The bottom line is at present no proposal exists that creates an environment of fair competition.
There are a multitude of people in America with agendas. Not the least of which is greed and self-interest. There are people who believe they can make money in education through skimming the cream of the crop of students and those who will become richer by not having to support a public educational system. In America money buys influence and power. These motives should not drive educational decisions.
Currently a series of “documentary” style movies funded by voucher advocates including Waiting for Superman have painted a picture of a failing public school system in which no public educator is shown in anything but an unfavorable light, if at all, and charter schools are presented as the solution. (For a more complete analysis see Diane Ravitch’s, The Myth of Charter Schools, in the New York Times Review of Books.
Charter schools are not the panacea they are painted to be. Virtually every example of charters with substantial achievement results incorporates the ability of the charter to select students. Any school which is allowed to select students should be expected to outperform schools who are not allowed to select their students.
The foregoing notwithstanding, I believe there is a narrow niche charter schools could fill. They could serve as a safety net to ensure there is an educational alternative available for children who otherwise would not be receiving an education. That is in fact the reason the Lafayette School Corporation agreed to sponsor the one charter school it has sponsored.
There is a greater issue posed by privatization, vouchers, choice, and charter schools. The issue is much larger than the impact these policies may have on an individual school in a local community. The issue is one that will define who we are as a nation. Do we choose to be united or divided?
Vouchers cost taxpayers money because with vouchers the state has created two school systems, one private the other public. A study by Columbia University Professor Henry Levin concluded a national voucher plan would cost taxpayers nearly $33 billion additional dollars just to pay the tuition for students already in private schools. The Wisconsin Legislative Fiscal Bureau concluded that in Milwaukee where vouchers were offered, property taxes were higher than they would have been without a school choice program. Private school tuition does not cover the actual cost to educate students. While subsidies from other sources can be used to educate a select few children, such a model cannot be used for all students. Indiana’s solution is to fund vouchers and charter schools by taking money from existing public schools.
A United States Government Accounting Office study “found little or no difference in voucher and public school student’s performance.” In the vast majority of cases across the country voucher schools are not required to reveal student test results or give students the same tests required of public schools. The reality is private voucher schools are allowed to play by an entirely different set of rules than those imposed on public schools. They do not have to accept any child who wants to attend. What is the poverty at-risk student count, the number of students receiving free or reduced lunches, the number of limited English language, minority students, or special education students in the schools that want to tout their schools performance as better than public schools? True competition requires everyone to operate under the same set of rules. If that fails to occur, the idea that vouchers somehow introduce competition is intellectually dishonest. The current programs being discussed by policy makers and the public are not voucher plans. They are targeted assistance plans. Genuine choice requires every child be given the resources to make a free choice of where they attend school. This would require a huge investment of resources. Even if a portion of that money were directed towards our current public school system a vast majority of our children would benefit greatly.
Proponents of vouchers and privatization need to answer the following questions:
1. How will a system of private or charter schools do a better job of ensuring all children will have equal access to educational opportunity than the current system of public education?
2. What methods and techniques of instruction are used in private or charter schools that are better than those used in public schools? If there are some, for the good of the country don’t you think these should be shared with everyone?
3. What laws, rules, and regulations are private or charter schools exempted from that permit them to be more effective or efficient? If there are some and the nation is at risk, don’t you think all schools should be exempted from them?
The biggest problem confronting our world in the 21st century is and will remain the increasing schism between the haves and the have nots. Public schools help close that schism, not widen it. Public schools serve all children. Public schools try to teach respect for others and tolerance for differences. Public schools do not allow students to ignore content standards. Public schools aren’t about training children for a specific job at the expense of the arts. Public schools do not exist to make money for a select few. Public schools are about believing in all children and inspiring them to hope and dream.
Creativity and fresh thinking are not the sole purview of those in private or charter schools. If there are ideas that would benefit children, they need to be shared with everyone so that all children benefit. Our children are far too important for us to do otherwise.
During the last legislative session the legislature passed the Indiana School Scholarship Tax Program. Examination of the laws in other states underscores the significance of what is not contained in the Indiana School Scholarship Tax Program. There is no prohibition about the contribution directly benefiting the dependent of a donor. There is no language limiting the tax credit to a single parent of a child whose parents are divorced or separated. There is no prohibition in using the scholarships to fund the costs of teaching religious tenets or doctrines of worship. The program goes beyond providing scholarships only to people who qualify for free or reduced lunch.
It is clear the law was enacted to begin the process of funding private education. The law diminishes tax revenue available to the state. The law has the effect of attempting to remove the argument concerning government support of parochial schools by removing the government one step from the distribution of money directly to parochial schools. Given the nature of the income restrictions the law will advantage families of means, children already attending private schools, and children attending parochial schools.
Arguments about tax credits will continue. Should the state forego money that could be used by the state for other purposes including public schools and allow that money to fund private and parochial schools? Who should benefit from such a program? If a tax credit program is going to exist, what form should it take? Should it encompass a credit for all parents for educational expenses regardless of where a child attends school? Should the program be expanded to include funding educational reform and improvement initiatives? As a minimum, efforts need to be taken to amend the law to correct the lack of clear definitions and lack of transparency.
Some of the today’s most controversial proposals may have some merit. Seniority, the structure of the tenure system, and the scope of collective bargaining are legitimate topics for public policy discussions.
There are many educational reform proposals being made by state and national legislators. If these measures are built upon objective data and are modified by reasoned discourse, they should be implemented. If the intent of any proposal, however well disguised, is to serve political agendas, personal self interest, or is built upon popular prejudices supported by false claims, that reform should be discarded.
Public education is one of the pillars of our nation. As Horace Mann put it, “The public school is the greatest discovery made by man.” He believed education is best provided in schools embracing children of all religious, social, and ethnic backgrounds.
Do changes need to be made to our current system? The answer is yes. However, at present the environment of the discussion can be described best by Herman Wouk’s introduction to Caine Mutiny, “When in danger or in doubt, run in circles scream and shout.”
There is a substantive difference between opinion that is informed by peer reviewed research and uninformed opinion. Unfortunately in today’s world of viral media, uninformed opinion is given as much, if not more weight, than informed opinion. Discussion of educational reform must be informed, reflective, and respectful. I am concerned about the repercussions of some of the ill conceived proposals being offered. I am afraid they will create an even greater sense of confusion, frustration, turmoil, and will result in unwise public policies.
Addressing the challenge of educational reform requires far more words than this superficial treatment of the topic. It requires knowledgeable professionals engaged in research, study, discussion, and practice.
The idea of improvement and accountability are good ideas, but not wrapped in a package designed to degrade public education and spur privatization. I believe there is no better calling than nurturing, inspiring, and empowering children to learn. The task of educating our children is of vital importance to our future. The overwhelming majority of teachers and administrators chose the education profession to make a difference in the lives of children. I can only hope that everyone engaged in addressing the topic of educational reform will “Put Children First” as much as the overwhelming number of public school teachers and administrators do.
Edward E. Eiler, Ed.D., Supt, Lafayette School Corporation
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Indiana's Reform: Follow the Money
Bennett's education ties
Tony BennettAs the GOP-controlled Indiana General Assembly continues its assault on public education, Hoosiers should consider who benefits from the legislation under consideration. They'll see that Tony Bennett, superintendent of public instruction, would clearly be a winner.
The first-term Republican is backing an ambitious legislative agenda that includes private-school vouchers, expansion of charter schools, privatization of struggling schools and relaxed teacher-licensing requirements. Bennett told The Journal Gazette editorial board last week that he didn't really have a priority list for the bills. He said he instead wanted to focus on "comprehensive education reform."
"We've tried to do one thing at a time too much," he said. "My priority is to get it all accomplished."
Indeed, with Republican majorities in both the Indiana House and Senate, the state superintendent doesn't need to name a priority: He's finding enthusiastic support from GOP lawmakers for measures that have been dead on arrival in previous sessions. Approval of the legislation will surely boost the political profile of an official who some observers believe is positioning himself for a run for governor.
But Bennett, an unabashed charter-school supporter, also stands to benefit directly if the education bills are approved. His wife, Tina Bennett, is school improvement/new schools development consultant for the Indiana Public Charter Schools Association. Her work would presumably increase with the opening of new Indiana charter schools.
Tina Bennett is also assistant director of the Teach for America program at Marian University in Indianapolis. Marian's president is Daniel J. Elsener, who also happens to serve on the Indiana State Board of Education.
The small Catholic university was awarded a $500,000 principal training grant from the Indiana Department of Education last year. A spokeswoman for Tony Bennett told the Indianapolis Star at the time that the superintendent's wife wasn't involved in the program, but the contract proposal cites Marian's partnership with Teach for America as an example of prior leadership in the area of school turnaround programs.
Some in the education community say that Marian University had no experience in training school principals, while Indiana University, one of the unsuccessful bidders, has a well-established program in educational leadership. Critics don't want to be quoted on the record – they fear retribution from a powerful administration with the authority to control budgets and regulatory oversight.
Tony Bennett listed both Marian University and the charter school organization as his wife's employers on his handwritten financial disclosure form for 2010. Indiana law requires only that state officials disclose the names of a spouse's employers and the nature of their business.
It's left to voters to decide whether the official's responsibilities pose a conflict with his or her spouse's work. But in weighing education bills that will clearly benefit the state's charter school community and its turnaround school programs, Indiana lawmakers should take a closer look at who benefits from their support.
Tony BennettAs the GOP-controlled Indiana General Assembly continues its assault on public education, Hoosiers should consider who benefits from the legislation under consideration. They'll see that Tony Bennett, superintendent of public instruction, would clearly be a winner.
The first-term Republican is backing an ambitious legislative agenda that includes private-school vouchers, expansion of charter schools, privatization of struggling schools and relaxed teacher-licensing requirements. Bennett told The Journal Gazette editorial board last week that he didn't really have a priority list for the bills. He said he instead wanted to focus on "comprehensive education reform."
"We've tried to do one thing at a time too much," he said. "My priority is to get it all accomplished."
Indeed, with Republican majorities in both the Indiana House and Senate, the state superintendent doesn't need to name a priority: He's finding enthusiastic support from GOP lawmakers for measures that have been dead on arrival in previous sessions. Approval of the legislation will surely boost the political profile of an official who some observers believe is positioning himself for a run for governor.
But Bennett, an unabashed charter-school supporter, also stands to benefit directly if the education bills are approved. His wife, Tina Bennett, is school improvement/new schools development consultant for the Indiana Public Charter Schools Association. Her work would presumably increase with the opening of new Indiana charter schools.
Tina Bennett is also assistant director of the Teach for America program at Marian University in Indianapolis. Marian's president is Daniel J. Elsener, who also happens to serve on the Indiana State Board of Education.
The small Catholic university was awarded a $500,000 principal training grant from the Indiana Department of Education last year. A spokeswoman for Tony Bennett told the Indianapolis Star at the time that the superintendent's wife wasn't involved in the program, but the contract proposal cites Marian's partnership with Teach for America as an example of prior leadership in the area of school turnaround programs.
Some in the education community say that Marian University had no experience in training school principals, while Indiana University, one of the unsuccessful bidders, has a well-established program in educational leadership. Critics don't want to be quoted on the record – they fear retribution from a powerful administration with the authority to control budgets and regulatory oversight.
Tony Bennett listed both Marian University and the charter school organization as his wife's employers on his handwritten financial disclosure form for 2010. Indiana law requires only that state officials disclose the names of a spouse's employers and the nature of their business.
It's left to voters to decide whether the official's responsibilities pose a conflict with his or her spouse's work. But in weighing education bills that will clearly benefit the state's charter school community and its turnaround school programs, Indiana lawmakers should take a closer look at who benefits from their support.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Parent Power Meeting on IPS High School Takeover
Dear Friends of IPS,
Many of you have found a great school in IPS, but five high school's are slated for state takeover this year (mine is next year) and our district leaders have done little to work with parents and students to solve school problems. It has never held a community meeting on the issue. In the fall, Parent Power asked the Board to hold a truly open community forum, but the President thought there was little reason to meet with her constituents.
In the year since takeover threat was announced, Dr. White has balanced the calendar, closed schools, announced a new HS for one constituency, and shifted administrators from one failing school to the next, and now he is holding two budget cut meetings--with little or no notice to parents.
I plan to join Parent Power at the first Budget meeting Wed., Feb 9, 6 pm at Arlington HS, 4825 N. Arlington Ave., to make this meeting a truly open forum. Please join us and ask the Board to address issues you care about. If you can, join Parent Power Wednesday morning at 10am for a strategy session, at Central Library third floor meeting room (ask for the Parent Power room).
Josefa
253-1347
Many of you have found a great school in IPS, but five high school's are slated for state takeover this year (mine is next year) and our district leaders have done little to work with parents and students to solve school problems. It has never held a community meeting on the issue. In the fall, Parent Power asked the Board to hold a truly open community forum, but the President thought there was little reason to meet with her constituents.
In the year since takeover threat was announced, Dr. White has balanced the calendar, closed schools, announced a new HS for one constituency, and shifted administrators from one failing school to the next, and now he is holding two budget cut meetings--with little or no notice to parents.
I plan to join Parent Power at the first Budget meeting Wed., Feb 9, 6 pm at Arlington HS, 4825 N. Arlington Ave., to make this meeting a truly open forum. Please join us and ask the Board to address issues you care about. If you can, join Parent Power Wednesday morning at 10am for a strategy session, at Central Library third floor meeting room (ask for the Parent Power room).
Josefa
253-1347
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)