Freedom to Teach passes House Education Committee
02/06/2015

 

Yesterday, the House Education Committee passed HB 1009 (Rep. Bob Behning – Indianapolis) (13-0) – a bill that is part of the governor’s education agenda and one IPS, the Indiana Chamber and several reform groups, including Hoosiers for Quality Education, Teach Plus and Stand for Children, are pushing.

 

While HB 1009 passed unanimously out of committee, there are several problematic provisions remaining that ISTA opposes. The bill sets up yet another option in which community-based public schools are removed from local control and handed over to a charter or charter-like entity.

 

HB 1009 enables a minimum of two teachers, administrators or individuals in any combination to establish a freedom to teach (FTT) school, zone (not clearly defined) or entire district. While teachers are included in the list of eligible applicants to create an FTT school, the language does not explicitly require them. ISTA raised concerns at the hearing over the bill’s vagueness on this provision, requesting that assurances are made to require educator participation in development of FTT plans. An amendment requires that individuals wishing to start an FTT school must be employed by the district.

 

A number of other components in HB 1009 are troubling:

• Although the bill is silent in reference to charter schools, it is still clear that the structure of these FTT schools would resemble charters because they would be operated by an entity independent from the district such as a management team.
• Freedom to Teach is a catchy example of wordsmithing but in reality is another euphemism for more takeovers.
• Under the original bill, all employees in an FTT school would relinquish the rights to organize and collectively bargain. Rep. Behning amended the bill to provide a “May” provision on bargaining that would allow (but not require) employees to bargain within FTT schools. However, based on past experience in charters, and other schools operated by outside entities we know that attempts to bargain will leave school employees in fear for their jobs because they are essentially at-will under the administration. Bargaining would occur through a separate unit.
• The data on the performance of Indiana’s charter and charter-like operations are disappointing. Six in 10 charters received a D or F accountability grade compared to just one in 10 among community-public schools. The bill would expand operation by entities independent from the district. We need to invest in our community public schools that have a record of success.
• There is no research to suggest any of these “innovations” have worked to help student learning. The bill simply promotes more experimentation on students.

Much of what could be done under the bill is already allowed under current law through local decisions regarding compensation and roles. Schools already have an effective venue for the creation of innovative ideas under discussion committees. And there are a number of innovative programs already in existence. For example, there is T3 in IPS, Project Restore, the TAP program, as well as a number of magnet schools and academies.

 

A major amendment supported by “reform” groups provides for Career Pathways for teachers through differentiated compensation. Consultant Public Impact, a company based in North Carolina (brought in by Dr. Ferebee of IPS, formerly of NC), spoke in favor of these pathways. An amendment does prohibit discrimination based on age (omitted from the list in the original bill), which improves concerns that FTT schools would RIF higher paid experienced staff to raise salaries for beginning teachers.

 

ISTA certainly welcomes discussions about teacher pay, but again current law already provides for contracts that include differentiated compensation based on additional roles. The amendment itself could constitute an entirely separate bill.

 

HB 1009 offers no clear definition of what constitutes “innovation” to increase teacher salaries – there are bound to be winners and losers – and if some employees are paid more, the costs elsewhere will likely be cut. Public Impact, along with Rep. Behning, referred to practices in other countries, including larger class sizes (possibly up to 10 additional students) for highly-effective and effective teachers. Rigorous research has shown the importance of smaller classes for student learning, and this is not a tradeoff that is in the best interest of students.

 

Additionally, schools run by outside entities tend to pursue more lenient teacher licensure requirements under law. That speaks for itself with regard to the companies, the employees and the consequences for children.

 

Only two public hearings are required to create one of these FTT schools (originally a single hearing was required). This fast-track process does not represent transparent government and local taxpayer and parent buy-in. Although both the State Board and DOE must receive the plan, there is no appeal process under the bill. There is too much at stake here to push a plan through on such a short timeline.

 

Finally, while the fiscal statement in HB 1009 is vague, the budget bill (HB 1001) contains a line item for the FTT program of $2 million (keep in mind the governor’s budget proposal also includes a $1,500 grant for every charter student). The State Board would administer the fund. The real issue here reveals that greater funding is needed for public schools, not more carve outs for additional experimentation.

 

ACTION: HB 1009 is being recommitted to the House Ways and Means Committee. Please contact members of Ways and Means and your own representative and urge them to vote NO on HB 1009.