Update on Education bills in Legislature

[AwakeAtLast]

I am posting this because I said in a previous post that I would keep you up to date on the happenings at the Statehouse that involve education.

Playing Favorites with School Funding!

In past years, (and still in today’s uncomprehending headlines), the school funding fight came down to a battle between growing and declining enrollment school corporations. This year, both get hurt. In the House-passed budget bill (HB 1001) this year

* Indianapolis Public Schools – a declining enrollment school corporation with 80% of its children on free and reduced priced lunches, loses $11.9

Million in regular education dollars over the biennium for a potential loss of 282 teachers. (IPS receives -2% and -1.8% cuts over the biennium).

* Hamilton Southeastern Schools –the fastest growing school corporation in the state – lost $3,850,818 due to the growth cap in the 04-05 formula.

In this year's HB 1001, Hamilton Southeastern does NOT receive funding for new 887 students over the biennium for an additional loss of $8,765,334 – under-funding their growth needs BY HALF. (Hamilton SE receives +6.8% and 5.6% increases over the biennium.)

These situations are repeated in every Hoosier school corporation, portending a statewide explosion in class-sizes, increased discipline problems, increased absenteeism of students and staff, and lower test scores. Not exactly the path to closing the achievement gap is it?

Charter Schools Get the Gold!

Find out how: http://www.ista-in.org/sam.cfm?xnode=3013

[Voltaire]

1. I saw that on the news this morning

and immediately launched into a very loud, profanity-laced tirade against all things Republican, capitalist, and American.

I should perhaps watch Sportscenter instead.

[SpeedwayDemocrat]

2. And SportCenter provides the TRUTH?

Ah, c'mon Voltaire - we both know how slanted the national sportscasters are against anything Indiana-related! Listen to those national broadcast idiots call a Pacers game, and you'll see what I mean! No more big, dumb jocks, please....

[Voltaire]

3. But, but, but,

I just turn the sound down. . .

Seriously though, there is nothing and I mean NOTHING that any athlete or coach can say in an interview that is remotely newsworthy. Same shit, different sport, every day. Gittin ma game off and takin it to the nes level!

And it took me awhile being from out-of-state, but they ARE prejudiced against the Pacers.

[salin]

4. At the high school level... the current funding policy is a bit perverse..

what the "minimum enrollment formula" means is that districts that lose students do not lose funding... they increase funding by an established amount regardless of their enrollment. What this means is that if there are 250 fewer students in one year... they are still funded at say 2.5% more... the next year if they lose another 250 students (500 students less in two years) they are still funded at 2.5% (or whatever the statewide increase is) more based on the previous years funding (that is based on 500 fewer students.) At the high school level a funky allowance of how to calculate grad/dropout rates allows a school/district to ignore those who stop attending. That is, they look at fall enrollments across grades 9-12 and compare that to enrollment in the spring, divide by four (four grades) and hence a "graduation rate". Some districts do not count kids (many) who stop attending during the year as dropping out, unless they come in and do so formally. They count them as attending - but absent. Then drop them from the rolls in the summer. This can deflate a 50% (or lower in some districts case) dropout rate, to - in one decietful district's accounting - to less than 5%. The reality is that in a declining district, one is funded at the same level whether or not a whole lot of high schoolers drop out. The district automatically gets an increase from the previous years' funding based on the first year of the calculation's level (e.g., if a district has lost 1,500 students over four years due to declining enrollments - and the formulation was started four years ago, their funding level is still calculated as a percentage increase based on the original student population number.) THus, students who are less engaged (eg don't like school) and thus may have lower test scores (because they don't care), become irrelevant - or even expendable - to the bean counters in the district. Infact they cost the district more if they stay in school (eg more students, on a fixed but incerasing funding level, means fewer dollars per student if we keep kids in who might drop out.)

Go to the DOE and look at actual enrollmen t numbers for a district like IPS at the high school level, from year to year (eg 2001 freshman, compared to 2002 sophomores) it is quite schocking, especially if you look at their self proclaimed graduation rates. A complete disconnect.

While I would be skeptical of HOW the funding formula is corrected - I do belive that many districts, due to current policy, are rewarded financially for letting more challenging students drop out - they lose NO dollars - but have fewer students costs. Some kind of fix to this situation is not out of line. THe real drop out rate in this state is awful. The question is what the fix looks like, but a fix in and of itself is not something (esp if one is concerned with graduation rates in higher poverty/higher mobility thus declining enrollment district) that one should scream about.

It is an area I have studied and been a part of professionally for years (esp regarding potential dropouts.) Indiana's current funding policy is complex, and has some unintended consequences;. That isn't saying that any fix is a good fix.