Here are our specific concerns with HB 1002:

1. We oppose the watering down of requirements for the Secretary of Education. (Sect 13 of the bill, page 38) This position must have the relevant experience requirements that other state-appointed positions do. Keep the requirements currently in law for our Secretary of Education. As our lobbyist, Mr. Hand said in committee: ““Having someone lead the state Department of Education without a background in K-12 education is tantamount to the governor appointing a superintendent of State Police who has no prior law enforcement background.”

2. We oppose eliminating the requirement that foundational documents of democracy be in every school building (public, charter, and voucher accepting schools). Sections 55 (page 54) & 138 (pages 101-102) ICPE believes that civics education is essential and that public schools play a vital role in the preservation of democracy.

If charter schools are going to take public funds, they must play by the same rules as traditional public schools. We oppose or question the weakening of some requirements and regulations in HB1002 for charter schools. Specifically:

• • • Some language in the bill would exempt charter schools, but not school corporations, from losing part of their state tuition support dollars for failing to conduct 180 student instructional days. (Page 99 Line 13 Section 134)
    • Allows existing charter schools to apply to a new authorizer without including a written acknowledgment from the current authorizer and, in some cases, removes the required SBOE hearing and SBOE approval before a new authorizer can grant a charter to an existing charter school. Transparency? (Page 56 Line 32 -within Section 57 & Page 60 Line 10 Section 60)
    • No requirement for each charter school board member to submit a Statement of Economic Interest to the IDOE and the authorizer with the charter application. It’s a timing issue of seeing those business interests at the same time as they apply. Page 56 Line 22 (within Section 57)

3. Changing statute to make privatization easier? We are deeply concerned with page 57 Line 5 Section 58 – It allows a district to be completely “charterized,”or turned into an all-charter district, by removing the requirement that the “governing body” must provide a non-charter public school that students of the same age or grade can attend. Currently there must be a public option when a charter school is opened. We are concerned that this change in statute would enable HB 1136 to occur, or for IPS to go all charter on its own.

4. Liability for charter schools? Page 109 Line 9 Section 166 – Removes responsibility for the authorizer to ensure that a charter school is in compliance with applicable legal standards as determined by the SBOE. Is this being removed to try to limit liability by the authorizer to third parties? There is currently a student case against a charter school that also names Trine as a defendant.

5. Encouraging Drop Outs?(Page 114 Line 20 Section 179) Allows 16 and 17 year olds to withdraw from school before graduation without the required exit interview, written consent from parents and principal, and evidence of financial hardship/need for employment, illness or a court order. What will this do to graduation rates and trying to keep kids in school? What will this do for students who struggle?

TAKE ACTION
Please contact the House Education Committee and your own representative and tell them you oppose parts of this bill.

Find your legislators here.