HB 1638 seeks to accelerate school takeover
02/06/2015

 

The House Education Committee heard HB 1638 (Rep. Bob Behning) yesterday and will be voting on the bill next Tuesday. The bill is similar to HB 1337 from the 2013 General Assembly, which was defeated on the House floor with a bipartisan vote.

 

 The bill contains two major components:

 

1. Accelerates school takeover by “special management teams” through contracts with the State Board.
2. Creates transformation zones – a model currently used in Evansville and IPS that also allows outside entities to operate schools.

Supporters of the bill included Dr. Ferebee of IPS and representatives from EVSC where transformation zones already exist. The governor’s office, Indiana Chamber, State Board and “reform” advocates also spoke in favor of the bill.

 

Much of the testimony focused on the need to allow failing schools more flexible exit options from struggling districts and pointed success stories in IPS and EVSC. ISTA opposes the bill while emphasizing that no one wants to see perpetually failing schools for students.

 

However, accelerating the timeline for outside takeover from six years of F to four years is misguided (an amendment removed D schools from the fast-track and only includes prospectively failing schools – i.e., resets the clock for takeover). ISTA spoke against the acceleration, but regardless of the timeline one simple fact remains: our public schools should not be outsourced to for-profit, out-of-state companies with disappointing track records at the expense of taxpayers. Period.

 

• All five takeover schools received F grades well into the fourth year of operation by management teams. Only a single takeover improved to a D last year.
• Nearly six in 10 charters (and takeovers are run by charters or charter-like entities) received D or F grades last year compared to just one of 10 community public schools.
• These takeover schools have remained among the worst performers on state tests.
• EVERY takeover school saw steep drops in student enrollment from their last years of school district control. For example, Arlington High School’s 2011-12 enrollment under IPS dropped from 1,223 to 518 in the first year of takeover.
• Tindley, Arlington’s charter operator, sought to exit the contract with IPS when its business model failed and came before the State Board to request additional money.
• Operators have argued that students should remain in the building, this contradicts the notion of “school choice” – the very concept this entire reform model is based upon in the first place.
• There has been confusion over roles and authorities of the operator and the roles of the State Board and districts over who pays for repairs, maintenance and other costs.
• All of these problems have called into question the viability of takeovers. Even the State Board has had difficult navigating these waters.

Under the bill, these management companies specifically would receive their funding directly from the state and are given access to a building, all its contents, equipment, facilities and all student records. This comes at a time when cases of charter fraud, mismanagement and closures are on the rise nationally, including Indiana.

 

With a poor performance track record, it is irresponsible to think that changing the structure of a school and shifting around adults is going to solve the root of the problem. These policies have shown no significant gains for student learning.

 

Finally, the creation of transformation zones as an option statewide poses several key concerns:

• Allows operators to bring in “feeder schools” from a failing district, essentially opening the door to entire districts run by outside companies.
• The default position on employee representation is that educators within these schools become at-will employees and forfeit the right to organize and collectively bargain unless they voluntarily recognize an exclusive representative. Again, we know what happens when charter employees attempt to organize.
• Transformation zones already exist in EVSC and IPS under current law. It is unclear why legislative changes are needed.

 

ACTION: The bill is up for vote next Tuesday in committee. Please contact members of the House Education Committee and your own representative and urge them to vote NO on HB 1638. The disappointing track record of “special management teams” speaks for itself.