Artboardbackpack_iconblog_iconcalendar_iconchat-bubble_iconArtboardclock_iconArtboarddown-arrow-icondownload_iconfacebook-iconflickr-icongears_icongrad-hat_iconhandheart_iconinstagram-iconArtboardlaptop_iconleft-arrow-iconArtboardArtboardnews_iconArtboardpencil_iconpeople_iconpublication_iconArtboardright-arrow-iconruler_iconscroll_iconsearch_iconArtboardspeaker_icontools_icontwitter-iconup-arrow-iconyoutube-icon
‹ Back to List

The 2015 session has ended. Here's what passed on the final day.
04/29/2015

 

Sine_Die.jpgLate Wednesday night, the 2015 Indiana General Assembly session ended.

 

Within a few days, the ISTA Governmental Relations Department will provide to you a comprehensive list of what passed, what failed, what was good, what will remain challenging—but for tonight—the night of adjournment, let us provide to you a synopsis of this last day’s work.

 

The following bills were enacted tonight:

 

HB 1001: The Budget and School Funding Formula

  • The House passed HB 1001 by a vote of 69-30. 
  • The Senate passed HB 1001 by a vote of 40-9.
  • School Funding Formula
    • 2.3% and 2.3% statewide average increases for FY 2016 and FY 2017.  See your own district’s funding in the formula run.
    • Increase in per student foundation = $4,967 from $4,587 in FY 2016 and $5,088 for FY 2017.
    • Increases in Special Education Severe Category to $8,800 from $8,350 and Mild/Moderate to $2,300 from $2,265.
    • Embeds Full Day Kindergarten funding in school formula instead of separate grant program.
    • Creates a new two-tiered Advanced Placement funding mechanism.
    • CTE funding increases for high wage/moderate wage and high demand/moderate demand categories—lowers funding for certain categories.
    • Creates a new “complexity” factor in the formula that is based upon participation in the federal SNAP, TANF, and Foster care programs—called “direct certification.”
  • State Biennial Budget
    • Provides $30 million in FY 2016 and $40 million in FY 2017 for teacher performance awards that are not bargainable even though these stipends are salary and wage issues which under the 2011 law were made bargainable.
    • Recognizes master’s degrees in subjects under dual credit assignments, master’s in subjects that are taught, and for elementary teachers master’s in math and/or reading & literacy for purposes of providing additional compensation—however, the allocation of this supplement is not bargainable even though the amounts are salary and wages which under the 2011 law were made bargainable.
    • Limits remediation funding in districts to 1% of the revenue the district receives annually—regardless of whether the student need for such programs exceeds this threshold.
    • Creates a charter school grant program of $500 per student for certain charter schools and creates a charter school/INS advance (loan) program from the common school fund.
    • Retains the $25 million guarantee should new voucher funding cause the state to hit its FY cap.
    • Provides $3 million each year to the Department of Education for its outreach work to help districts in need of turnaround.
    • Gives the SBOE $2.5 million each year for its operations which under SB 1 will include a new executive director and staff (formerly CECI).
    • Adds a 13th check for PERF and TRF retirees.

HB 1009: Innovation Network Schools

  • The House passed HB 1009 by a vote of 72-26. 
  • The Senate passed HB 1009 by a vote of 29-20. 
  • This bill was the melding together of the Governor’s “Freedom to Teach” bill and the Senate’s Innovation Network Schools. In this new version, both governance models are called Innovation Network Schools (INSs). One option allows 2 teachers and a principal and/or superintendent to create a plan for a “school within a school.” The school district must approve the plan to proceed. The second option is simply a school board decision to become an INS. In either case, the local teacher association must be separated from the district’s local teacher association, thereby fracturing the unit. ISTA worked hard to find a compromise from the authors and the governor’s office to recognize that the collective voice of teachers has value in any kind of governance model change—that without honoring that collective voice through unit preservation and/or majority teacher vote sign-off—programs such as this face unnecessary obstacles.  Those negotiations did not result in language that could be perceived as giving teachers an equal partnership in innovation. 
  • Most of all, the “innovation” contemplated in this bill could be achieved without the creation of this new state law and, if so, the local teachers association would be preserved.  In effect, the reason for this bill, one could argue, was to fracture the local association.
  • Therefore, ISTA opposed this bill.

HB 1483:  Various Issues

  • The House passed HB 1483 by a vote of 83-2. 
  • The Senate passed HB 1483 by a vote of 49-0. 
  • HB 1483 has several concepts:  School Psychologists are defined as teachers for certain purposes; families in which custody resides in two places would have to decide one time each year the student’s residence for school attendance purposes; school bus monitors are not required to have the same visual acuity as school bus drivers; student instruction is not to be contrary to curriculum and standards; allows hand-units to take ISTEP testing; provides that fact-finding in collective bargaining cannot exceed 30 days and the board must rule on an appeal within 60 days.
  • ISTA did not oppose the final version of this bill.

HB 1638: Accountability & Transformation Zone Schools

  • The House passed HB 1638 by a vote of 62-27. 
  • The Senate passed HB 1638 by a vote of 27-22. 
  • HB 1638 primarily addressed two fundamental concepts:  the first dealing with the accountability process, the takeover of F schools, and the closing of challenged schools; the second concept is the creation of “transformation zone” schools.
  • The threshold for invoking a possible takeover of a public school goes from six consecutive years of “F” status to four consecutive years of “F” status.  An additional year can, at the discretion of the SBOE, be allowed if the school in question is showing progress.
  • The closing of a public school was made more difficult by requiring a 2/3 SBOE vote and a student redistribution plan.
  • The transformation zone governance model created in this bill applies to “D” or “F” schools based upon a school board decision.  However, the makers of this bill did recognize (for the first time in one of these types of governance changes) that the exclusive representative has value in partnering with the school board.  So, full bargaining rights are maintained and the local association continues to be recognized for 3 consecutive years—during which the school can show improvement and come out from under the threat of takeover.
  • Because there was a willingness to include the local association in these dealings, the ISTA became neutral on this bill. 

SB 1:  The change in power between the State Superintendent Glenda Ritz and the State Board of Education

    • The House passed SB 1 by a vote of 60-38. 
    • The Senate’s vote was 31-17. 
    • The debate centered on the wholesale changes to how education policy in this state will be developed, administered, and implemented on a day-to-day basis. 
    • ISTA consistently opposed both SB 1 and HB 1609 (the House version) as marginalizing voter intent by primarily diminishing Glenda Ritz’ authority as Chairperson of the State Board of Education. 
      • SB 1 as enacted calls for the change in Chairmanship beginning January 2017.  However, a vice-chair must be appointed in June of 2015. 
      • The bill changes the composition of the SBOE by June 1, 2015. 
      • The new composition will be 8 governor-appointments of which not more than 5 can be from the same political party, and at least 6 must have professional experience in education, and one from each congressional district. 
      • Additionally, the Speaker of the House and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate will each get an appointment. 
      • The budget bill provides $2.5 million each year to the SBOE to operate and the SBOE is given its own executive director—thereby creating a full-fledged new state agency that will ostensibly run tandem with the Department of Education administered by the Superintendent of Public Instruction.
      • The SBOE is given state education agency status for purpose of interfacing with the federal government—again, calling into question the dual roles of the DOE and the SBOE.

SB 566:  Various Issues

    • The House passed SB 566 by a vote of 83-3. 
    • The Senate passed SB 566 by a vote of 49-0.  
    • SB 566 includes several concepts:  Creates an interim study committee on state testing issues; requires an annual attorney general letter to be sent to teachers informing them of rights and protections at taxpayer expense; exempts from grading certain low population schools wherein there is not a sufficient sample to garner verifiable results; creates a pathway for STEM teachers with a minor in education to be licensed; and prohibits Indiana from using the Common Core state standards but recognizes that Indiana may benefit from purchasing test questions from other national tests in order to save money.
    • ISTA did not oppose this version of SB 566.