Other
Policy Positions
Supported by DOE
Resolve Charter School Funding Issues
Three very important charter school funding issues need to be resolved by the legislature this year. The first issue is regarding the first semester start-up and tuition expenses for charter schools. The Indiana Department of Education, per the official opinion of the Attorney General, paid approximately $2 million, from July through December 2002, to charter schools for tuition expenses. Though charter school student enrollment was not factored in the tuition support appropriation by the legislature, this expense has been paid through tuition support funds. This payment has contributed to the need for a deficiency appropriation to be addressed by the legislature during the budget deliberations. Addressing the start-up and first semester operating costs for charter schools are important to ensure program success during the critical first few months of operations.
Second, and equally important, is the impact charter schools are having on school corporation funding, particularly the minimum guarantee districts. Of the approximately 1,250 students enrolled presently in charter schools, 270 students were enrolled in private schools and 33 students were in home schools last school year. None of these students were included in the public school enrollments previously. However, under the charter school law, students in non-public and home schools are considered as resident students of a public school corporation. The law requires the per pupil state support for these students to be sent to the respective charter school and subtracted from the home school corporation. It is estimated that 25-30 percent of the state per pupil dollars directed from home school corporations to charter schools will be for students that were not enrolled in the public schools the previous year. Indianapolis Public Schools alone estimates this dollar amount to be $3 million.
Third, both House Enrolled Act 1108-2002 and House Enrolled Act 1257-2002 established charter schools as “qualified entities” to obtain financing through the Indianapolis and Indiana Bond Banks. Despite the new laws, charter schools have experienced difficulty in borrowing from these agencies. The Indiana Department of Education recommends that any remaining statutory barriers that are preventing charter schools from borrowing funds be resolved.
Maintain Indiana’s 180-Day Instructional Calendar
The Indiana Department of Education adamantly opposes any effort to reduce Indiana’s 180-day school calendar or change to an hour equivalency policy. Indiana’s school day requirements are minimums rather than optimums (they are comparable to requirements in other states; and our school year is on par with 35 other states). The requirement for a minimum number of instructional days is the only way to guarantee that students will meet with each of their teachers for the minimal time needed to acquire essential skills.
The current waiver system, which accommodates single building closures and abbreviated school days, realistically addresses unforeseen circumstances while still providing some protection for learning opportunities. Full-day, corporation-wide closures must be rescheduled. Failure to reschedule a canceled day means that students lose an opportunity to meet with their teachers. Changing to an hour equivalency would be an accounting nightmare for administrators and is not as attractive as it seems when transportation problems and different schedules at different buildings are considered. Indiana State Board of Education rules and Department of Education policies also accommodate time during the school year for parent-teacher conferences, professional development, and school improvement planning.
In considering a change to an hour equivalency system, it is necessary to examine the reasons schools have a day that is longer than the minimum. We assert that these schools want to do more than the minimum for their students. It could mean that they want a seven-period high school day. It could mean that these schools have created additional enrichment opportunities for their students. All those things would be jeopardized if the minimum were to be changed to an hour equivalency. Invariably, students would lose instructional time.
A problem with adding more minutes to the school day for noninstructional purposes or to waive make-up days at the end of the year is that it would result in exceedingly long days for students, especially those who rely upon school buses for transportation. If a school would like to increase the minutes per day of instructional time to allow for staff development days, it also would have to add extra minutes for cancellations. Excessively long days would be the result.
One reason that the students throughout this country do poorly in areas such as math and science, in comparison to students in Europe and Asia is that they attend school considerably fewer days per year. For example, the instructional calendar in Germany is 188 days, Japan 220 days, and Korea 222 days.
Pursuant to IC 20-10.1-2-1, an emergency policy can be implemented by the Superintendent of Public Instruction in response to extreme weather conditions. The emergency policy, if declared, makes it possible for districts adversely affected by poor weather to request a waiver of penalty for loss of instructional days. The primary objective in issuing the policy is to provide as much instructional time for Indiana’s students as possible, while recognizing the importance of offering flexibility to districts where hardships exist. This policy should be maintained.
As we move forward with educational reform in Indiana, we can see progress that has been made as a result of previous reforms like A+. Now is not the time to back away from the foundation that has been established by the Indiana General Assembly. The minimum 180-day school year was one of the first and hardest fought battles at the beginning of the 1987 reform. We must continue to move forward without backing away from the important commitments that have been made.
This General Assembly must move forward with a clear message. We must continue on the path we have chosen, to honor the hard work of our predecessors and not back away from our commitment to the future.