ERIC ED490900: Are Indiana's Public Schools in Need of Education Deregulation? Education Policy Brief. Volume 4, Number 1, Winter 2006

2006·0.23 MB·English

by  ERIC

Education Policy Brief
Are Indiana’s Public Schools in Need of Education Deregulation?
Terry E. Spradlin, Jonathan A. Plucker, Kelly A. Prendergast, and Brittany L. Bell
VOLUME 4, NUMBER 1, WINTER 2006
In November 2004, the Subcommittee on K- Flexibility options, or waivers, are presently
CONTENTS 12 Education submitted a report to the Indiana provided by the federal and state govern-
Government Efficiency Commission that out- ments to give schools more latitude in imple-
Federal Flexibility Options.................1 lined recommendations regarding K-12 menting programs and complying with
spending efficiencies. The report was explicit certain regulations. However, the fact that
Indiana’s Efforts in Deregulation......3 in its warning that the current regulatory struc- many educators strongly believe that regula-
ture of education in Indiana was not conducive tions impede their ability to effectively serve
Charter Schools..............................3 to improving achievement for all students, a students’ needs, in spite of the availability of
primary goal of a number of state and federal waivers, raises the question of whether these
Freeway Schools.............................4
education initiatives, particularly the No Child options are really providing sufficient flexi-
Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). In order to bility, or should actions be taken to further
Waivers............................................5
remedy this, the Subcommittee recommended deregulate education in Indiana?
in part that the Indiana Department of Educa-
Repeal of Obsolete Statutes..........6
tion (IDOE) free schools from as much regula- This Policy Brief highlights several federal
Superintendent Survey.......................6 tion as possible to allow them to focus on the and state flexibility options currently avail-
pursuit of academic achievement, shift to a able to schools, summarizes a survey of
Deregulation in Other States.............9 new role of providing support for this superintendents regarding their opinions of
endeavor, and align funding to facilitate it.1 the regulatory environment in Indiana, exam-
Prospects for Deregulation in ines deregulatory legislation enacted in other
Indiana in 2006.................................10 Despite the controversy surrounding some states, and considers whether public educa-
recommendations in the Subcommittee tion in Indiana would benefit from a round of
Policy Perspectives...........................11 report, its content provided a timely depiction deregulation. Additionally, policy perspec-
of a renewed perception that public education tives are shared by representatives of the
Conclusions.......................................14
in Indiana is too highly regulated. Schools are Indiana School Boards Association, the Indi-
required to comply with an abundance of rules ana Chamber of Commerce, and the Office of
End Notes..........................................15
at the federal, state, and local levels, and it is Governor Mitch Daniels.
argued that some of these regulations are
mandated without the necessary funding for
implementation.
UPCOMING POLICY BRIEFS AND Governor Mitch Daniels lent emphasis to this FEDERAL FLEXIBILITY OPTIONS
REPORTS . . . issue in a recent statement: “The most impor-
tant topic [facing K-12 education] is an ocean
of regulations on the books, many of which I
(cid:57) Enriching the High School Ed-Flex
know, from listening to teachers and princi-
Curriculum Through Postsecondary
pals, are getting in the way of education. Before NCLB was established, the Ed-Flex
Credit-Based Transition Programs
These are unfunded mandates in many cases, program was available to eligible states want-
(cid:57) Cyber Charter Schools in Indiana: and they are gumming up the works.”2 Sub- ing increased flexibility from federal regula-
Policy Implications of the Current sequently, on December 28, 2005, Governor tions. Ed-Flex began in 1994 as a
Statutory Language Daniels and Dr. Suellen Reed, State Superin- demonstration program under the Goals
tendent of Public Instruction, introduced the 2000: Educate America Act. By 1996, 12
(cid:57) College Remediation Trends “Dollars to the Classroom” initiative for con- states had been designated by the U.S. Secre-
sideration by the Indiana General Assembly tary of Education as Ed-Flex demonstration
(cid:57) Education Technology in Indiana:
during the 2006 session to provide schools states. Subsequently, the Education Flexibil-
Is it Worth the Investment?
more flexibility and to encourage the alloca- ity Partnership Act of 1999 made it possible
tion of more financial resources to student for any state meeting eligibility criteria to
instruction. apply for Ed-Flex status. Currently, Ed-Flex
status gives states the authority to grant waiv-
ers to Local Education Agencies (LEAs) However, if an LEA has been identified for of NCLB, such as the mandatory disaggrega-
from the requirements of several federally- improvement under Section 1116(c)(3) of the tion of student achievement data, are not up
funded programs, including: Elementary and Secondary Education Act for negotiation. However, as long as states
(ESEA), it can only transfer up to 30 percent and school districts can prove they are making
(cid:129) Title I, Part A, Improving the Academic
of its allocated funds from each program. If progress and adhering to the main principles
Achievement of Disadvantaged Children
an LEA has been identified for corrective of the law, the U.S. DOE will work with them
(except for Sections 1111 and 1116)
action under Section 1116(c)(10) of the to develop individualized methods of
(cid:129) Title II, Part A, Subparts 2 and 3, Teacher ESEA, it is not eligible for the Transferability approaching the requirements of NCLB.10
and Principal Training and Recruiting Authority Provision. Programs that LEAs can
(cid:129) Title III, Part B, Subpart 4, Emergency transfer funds to/from are:
Immigrant Education
(cid:129) Title IV, Part A, Subpart 1, Safe and Drug- (cid:129) Section 2121 of Title II, Improving Two Percent Guideline
Free Schools and Communities Teacher Quality State Grants
(cid:129) Title V, Part A, Innovative Programs (cid:129) Section 2412(a)(2)(A) of Title II, Educa- One relevant example of this new flexibility
tional Technology State Grants is the temporary two percent flexibility
(cid:129) The Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Tech-
nical Education Act3 (cid:129) Section 4112(b)(1) of Title IV, Safe and guideline. The U.S. DOE now acknowledges
Drug-Free Schools and Communities the existence of a group of students with dis-
The last demonstration state’s authority ran abilities who are able to make progress
(cid:129) Section 5112(a) of Title V, State Grants
out in 2002, although 7 of the 12 original towards performing at grade level, but need
for Innovative Programs
demonstration states reapplied and were Ed- more time and special accommodations to do
(cid:129) An LEA can transfer funds to Part A of
Flex states under the 1999 program.4 There Title I, however not from it7 so than their peers without disabilities. The
were a total of 10 Ed-Flex states as of 2005, U.S. DOE points to research indicating that
although the Education Flexibility Partner- this group of students makes up about two
Programs that SEAs can transfer funds to/
ship Act of 1999 was not reauthorized by percent of the overall tested population. Tem-
from are:
Congress in 2005 and the states’ Ed-Flex des- porary flexibility is now being granted on a
ignations have expired or are expiring soon. (cid:129) Section 2113(a)(3) of Title II, Improving state-by-state basis to allow states to make
Indiana was one of many states never to seek Teacher Quality State Grants retroactive adjustments to their AYP (Ade-
Ed-Flex designation. (cid:129) Section 2412(a)(1) of Title II, Educational quate Yearly Progress) calculations for up to
Technology State Grants two percent of students that fit this profile.11
The purpose is to allow schools to obtain the
(cid:129) Section 4112(a)(1) of Title IV, Safe and
AYP scores they may have obtained if this
Drug Free Communities Governor's
Transferability Authority issue had been addressed in the original
Funds
NCLB accountability requirements. Indiana
Subsequently, the most significant and con- (cid:129) Section 4112(c)(1) of Title IV, Safe and
has been granted a one-time calculation of
troversial shift in federal education policy in Drug Free Communities SEA funds
2004 data for LEAs that did not meet AYP
decades occurred with the passage of NCLB (cid:129) Section 4202(c)(3) of Title IV, 21st Cen-
solely because of the test data for the students
in 2001. Historically, public education has tury Community Learning Centers Grants
with disabilities group. In anticipation of a
largely been left in the hands of the states. In (cid:129) Section 5112(b) of Title V, State Grants
future provision that provides a more perma-
recent years, however, the federal govern- for Innovative Programs
nent solution for this group, Indiana is cur-
ment has increasingly stepped up its role in (cid:129) An SEA can transfer funds to Part A of
rently asking its educators to assess students
the regulation of public education in an Title I, however not from it8
who they believe may fit the two percent pro-
attempt to improve the quality and equity of
education across the U.S.5 Thus, schools In Indiana, the State Board of Education file with ISTAR. As an alternate assessment,
(SBOE) has not made any transfers under the ISTAR is currently being used in place of
appear to be operating in a heightened regula-
Transferability Provision. For the 2003-04 ISTEP+ for the one percent of students with
tory environment.
school year, 35 percent of LEAs used the the most severe cognitive disabilities who
NCLB does, however, include provisions for Transferability Provision to transfer funds. have already been recognized by NCLB. In
flexibility. Indeed, one of the four pillars of The program that LEAs transferred funds to using ISTAR to rate these students’ progress,
the law is “more freedom for states and com- more than any other was State Grants for the goal is to identify and learn more about
munities.”6 The primary example of this free- Innovative Programs. The program that the two percent of students that would fall
dom is the Transferability Authority, which LEAs transferred funds from more than any under eligibility for alternate assessment.12
allows state and local education agencies to other was Improving Teacher Quality State
transfer up to 50 percent of their allocated Grants.9
non-administrative funds from certain federal
In April of 2005, U.S. Secretary of Education State-Flex/Local-Flex
programs to other specified programs, with-
Margaret Spellings introduced new guidelines
out requesting special permission from the Other federal flexibility options under NCLB
for implementing NCLB, which she calls a
U.S. Department of Education (USDOE) to include the State-Flex and Local-Flex pro-
more “common-sense approach.” Under the
do so. The provision is intended to more grams. State-Flex allows the U.S. Department
new guidelines, states and school districts can
effectively meet the individualized financial of Education Secretary to give up to 7 SEAs
apply for more flexibility options to help them
needs of State Education Agencies (SEAs) the authority to consolidate certain state-level
meet the ultimate goal of having every student
and LEAs. federal funds13 and to allow 4 to 10 LEAs
performing at grade level by 2014. What Sec-
within each state to consolidate certain federal
retary Spellings refers to as the “bright lines”
funds. Florida became the first state to be
Are Indiana’s Public Schools in Need of Education Deregulation? — 2
awarded State-Flex authority in 2003, and implement creative and innovative edu- schools choose to start from scratch, develop-
although the state concluded later that partici- cational models and methods while holding ing their own philosophy of education and cur-
pating in the program was not in its best inter- them accountable for the academic achieve- riculum. For example, Galileo Charter School
ests.14 Florida opted out of the program, and ment of their students. In Indiana, charter in Richmond (serving grades K-3) bases its
there are no states currently operating under schools are exempt from the regulations pub- educational methods on the cornerstones of lit-
State-Flex status. Local-Flex allows the Sec- lic schools must follow, except those listed in eracy development, character education, and
retary to grant flexibility authority to up to 80 Table 1. However, national research shows self-esteem building.22
LEAs in states not operating under the State- that charter schools are not as deregulated as
Are the methods used by charter schools
Flex program. With this authority, LEAs can they are assumed to be. Charter proponents
working to improve student academic perfor-
consolidate certain local-level federal funds often have to make political compromises in
mance? Nationally, studies attempting to
and use them for any educational purpose order to get charter laws passed, resulting in
authorized under ESEA.15 Seattle is the first caps and limitations to autonomy. In addition, investigate the academic performance of
and only school district to be awarded Local- over 40 percent of charter schools nationwide charter schools have come up with inconsis-
Flex authority to date. report not having enough autonomy over cur- tent findings. Like traditional public schools,
charter schools perform at a wide range of
riculum and the school calendar, two areas
levels. Some are high-achieving, while others
originally meant to hold considerable flexi-
bility for charter schools.20 are in need of improvement. Indiana charter
INDIANA'S EFFORTS IN schools have only been in operation for a few
DEREGULATION Are charter schools in Indiana truly free to years, which is not enough time to make con-
implement innovative methods? Most seem to clusions regarding their efficacy. However, in
Spurred by Governor Daniel’s public com- at least be operating under an educational phi- 2004, 10 of the 22 charter schools in opera-
ments and the “Dollars to the Classroom” ini- losophy that includes non-standard practices. tion were eligible to receive AYP determina-
tiative currently before the legislature, Some charter schools are run by “educational tions under the federal NCLB accountability
deregulation is a hot topic among state poli- management organizations” (EMOs) that offer system. Only 3 of the 10 did not make it.23 In
cymakers and educators. However, these dis- pre-packaged nonstandard curricula. One 2005, Bart Peterson, Mayor of Indianapolis,
cussions about deregulation rarely example is Charter School of the Dunes in released an accountability report for the char-
acknowledge or analyze existing flexibility Gary (serving grades K-5), which is managed ter schools he authorized. Five had been oper-
and waiver mechanisms. These options by Mosaica Education Inc., an organization ating long enough to receive an AYP
include charter schools, the Freeway School that also manages other charter schools across determination, and only one of those, Flanner
Program, and various types of waivers. Addi- the nation. At Charter School of the Dunes, House Higher Learning Center, had its char-
tionally, in 2005 the legislature repealed a nonstandard approaches to education include ter contract revoked by Mayor Peterson for
short list of statutes considered to be obsolete. an extended school day and calendar year, use various reasons, including poor academic
of technology integrated into the curriculum, performance.24 AYP data for the rest of the
and a school day that consists of core subjects state’s eligible charter schools in 2005 was
such as math and reading in the morning, and not available at the time this Policy Brief was
a “Paragon” curriculum, which includes vari- written. Despite the questions of the efficacy
Charter Schools
ous courses in social studies, the performing of charter schools in Indiana, it is apparent
Although charter schools have existed in other arts, and character development, in the after- that the expansion of charter schools will
states since as early as 1992, Indiana did not noon. The school also provides full-day kin- continue due to a growing interest by LEAs in
pass charter school enabling legislation until dergarten and foreign language for all children organizing or sponsoring charter schools.25
2001,16 and the first charter schools in the beginning in kindergarten.21 Other charter
state did not open until the 2002-03 school
year. Currently there are 28 operating charter
schools in the state, mostly concentrated in
Indianapolis.17 Although charter schools in
Indiana can be authorized by local school TABLE 1.
boards, the mayor of Indianapolis, and any
Statutes and Rules Applicable to Charter Schoolsa
public four-year university in the state, the
majority of charter schools have been spon- IC 5-11-1-9 Audits by state board of accounts
sored by the mayor and Ball State University.
IC 20-35 Special education
Only two currently operating charter schools
IC 20-26-5-6 Subject to laws requiring regulation by state agencies
are sponsored by a local school board (both by
Evansville Vanderburgh School Corporation), IC 20-33-2 Compulsory attendance
and no charter schools are sponsored by a uni-
IC 20-33-8-16 Firearms and deadly weapons
versity other than Ball State.18 Less than one
IC 20-34-3 Health and safety measures
percent of public school students in Indiana
were enrolled in charter schools during the IC 20-30-3-2 and
2004-05 school year, compared to almost six
IC 20-30-3-4 Patriotic observances
percent in Arizona and almost 24 percent in
Washington D.C.19 IC 20-31 Accountability for school performance and improvement
IC 20-32-(4, 5, 6, 8) All statutes related to standardized assessment (ISTEP+)
Deregulation is a concept inherent to charter
schools. The purpose of deregulating charter a For a complete listing of statutes and rules applicable to charter schools, refer to Indiana School Laws
schools is to give them the freedom to design
and Rules. (2005-2006). IC 20-24-8-5.
Are Indiana’s Public Schools in Need of Education Deregulation? — 3
There are currently 42 schools under contract This information also begs the question,
as Freeway Schools, 41 of which are non- “Why aren’t more public schools applying
public. The only public Freeway School is the for Freeway status?” On a statewide survey
Freeway Schools
Indiana Academy for Science, Math, and of school corporation superintendents (see
Prior to the establishment of the charter Humanities at Ball State University. It is a pages 5-8 for additional survey information),
school law in 2001, the Indiana General two-year residential high school for gifted some respondents indicated that the Freeway
Assembly passed a law in 1995 establishing and talented students. What do non-public Schools application process was too bureau-
the Freeway School Program.26 This pro- schools stand to gain from freeway status? cratic itself. School corporations are required
gram is intended to provide more autonomy According to Jeffrey Zaring, State Board to submit an application for Freeway status to
and flexibility to public schools that become Administrator, state accredited schools must the SBOE. The application must specify the
Freeway Schools by giving them the author- take part in ISTEP+ requirements, and non- regulations the school corporation wishes to
ity to waive certain statutes and regulations public schools under Freeway status are auto- waive, with justification for the waiver, but
(see Table 2). In exchange for this authority matically state accredited. Therefore, non- there is no certainty that the application will
granted by the SBOE, Freeway Schools must public schools may benefit from freeway sta- be approved.
improve the academic performance, atten- tus in that they gain access to ISTEP+ testing
dance rates, and graduation rates of their stu- without the level of regulation that public Of the 42 Freeway Schools, 33 have waived
dents. The law also allows non-public schools face.27 statutes concerning curriculum, 17 have
schools to become Freeway Schools. waived textbook regulations, 15 have waived
instructional time requirements, and 11 have
waived ISTEP+ requirements. Statutes per-
taining to pupil/teacher ratio, pupil/principal
ratio, and high school credits have been
TABLE 2. waived by one school each. Most Freeway
Schools are waiving at least two of the eligi-
Rules and Statutes a Freeway School Can Elect to Suspenda
ble provisions. The schools that waived the
Concerning Curriculum and Instructional Time: ISTEP+ requirements did so before the new
IC 20-30-2-7 Minimum school term stipulation regarding alternate assessment,
and will be allowed to continue their suspen-
IC 20-30-5-8 Safety education curriculum
sion of ISTEP+ requirements until their five-
IC 20-30-5-9 Hygiene curriculum year Freeway School accreditation expires.28
IC 20-30-5-11 Alcohol, tobacco, prescription drugs, controlled substance cur- The same applies to the school waiving the
riculum pupil/principal ratio statute because the right
511 IAC 6.1-3-4 High school curriculum time requirements to waive this statute is no longer allowed.
511 IAC 6.7.6 Required and elective credits There are three public schools in Columbus
511 IAC 6.1-5-0.5 General curriculum principles that once had freeway school status but chose
not to continue the program. One elementary
511 IAC 6.1-5-1 Kindergarten curriculum
school used the Freeway School Program to
511 IAC 6.1-5-2.5 Elementary school curriculum
gain access to services provided by the Mod-
511 IAC 6.1-5-3.5 Middle level curriculum ern Red SchoolHouse Institute. Another was
implementing the C.L.A.S.S. program, and a
511 IAC 6.1-5-4 High school curriculum
high school wanted to use its Freeway status
Concerning Textbooks:
as a means to improve its educational offer-
IC 20-20-5-(1, 2, 3, 4) Adoption of textbooks ings to students. At the time, the two elemen-
tary schools were also using Freeway status
IC 20-20-5-23 Contracts, payment terms
to waive ISTEP+, and all three schools were
IC 20-26-12-24 Local textbook selection
waiving the Performance-Based Accredita-
IC 20-26-12-26 Mandatory offer to purchase tion system. ISTEP+ can no longer be waived
IC 20-26-12-28 Waiver of adoption requirements unless the LEA has a replacement assessment
that is criterion-referenced and is based on
IC 20-26-12-1 Mandatory purchase and rental; public school students
the Indiana Academic Standards; no LEA or
IC 20-26-12-2 Purchase and rental; rental fee; limitations school has yet been able to meet these criteria
511 IAC 6.1-5-5 Textbooks for a replacement assessment. Also, the
school improvement model the three schools
Other:
wanted to use, the Baldridge National Quality
511 IAC 6-7 Graduation requirements Program, has since become an approved
IC 20-31-4 Performance-based accreditation system school improvement model, thus leaving no
need for them to waive the Performance-
511 IAC 6.1-4-1 Pupil/teacher ratio
Based Accreditation system.29
IC 20--32-5 ISTEP+b
a Indiana School Laws and Rules. (2004-2005). IC 20-26-15-5
b ISTEP+ may only be suspended if an alternative locally adopted assessment program is established in
its place.
Are Indiana’s Public Schools in Need of Education Deregulation? — 4
1999, public schools must adopt a school if suspended, and curriculum and text-
improvement plan and have it approved by books.34 In addition, upon request of a gov-
the governing body of its LEA. If the school erning body of a LEA, the SBOE may waive
Waivers
did not use a model already approved by the for a school or a school corporation any stat-
IDOE for the development of its plan, it must ute or rule relating to curriculum and text-
Nonstandard Course/Curriculum
be reviewed by the IDOE to ensure that all book adoption. The IDOE reports that waiver
Waivers
necessary components are present. Schools requests were submitted in 2005 from the
can include waiver requests within their school boards of 18 school corporations. The
Schools can apply for a non-standard waiver
school improvement plans that can be granted waiver requests addressed minimum instruc-
when they wish to offer a course or curricu-
by the governing body of the LEA. The gov- tional time and day requirements, credit
lum that is not approved by the state. This
erning body may waive any rule adopted by requirements for student graduation, teacher
includes waivers for staffing (to allow teach-
the SBOE except for rules relating to the fol- licensing issues, textbooks, and curriculum.
ers to teach courses they are not certified to
lowing: health or safety of students or school Not all of these items are eligible for waiver
teach), programs (such as career programs),
personnel, the special education rules under under P.L. 221; nevertheless, school corpora-
course content, and instructional methods. In
511 IAC 7, rules that would bring the school tions were not deterred from submitting such
order to be granted this type of waiver, the
into noncompliance with federal regulations requests.35
school must provide evidence that the non-
standard course or curriculum they are pro-
posing will better serve its students than
Figure 1
anything approved by the SBOE. The waiv-
ers must not exceed three years, and schools
must provide annual reports to the IDOE doc-
Non-Standard Course/Curriculum Waivers
umenting the continual effectiveness of the
course or curriculum they are implement- 60%
ing.30 From 1995 to 2005, Indiana schools 54%
50%
applied for 420 waivers, 400 of which were 50%
s
approved. The average number of waivers on
granted per year was 36. Only 54 percent of cati 40%
the 293 public school districts in Indiana appli 30%
were responsible for these waiver requests. of
Fifty-four percent of the schools that applied ent 20%
c
requested waivers for staffing, 50 percent per
10%
requested waivers for unapproved courses,
2%
and 2 percent requested waivers for unap-
0%
proved programs (see Figure 1) If more than staffing course program
one type of waiver was requested in an appli-
type of waiver request
cation—for example a request to offer a
course that was not only unapproved but
would also be taught by a teacher who was
not certified in that area—it was counted as Figure 2
one waiver.31
Textbook Waivers
Percentage* of Textbook Waivers by Academic
A school corporation can apply for a waiver Subject
to use a textbook that has not been officially
adopted by the SBOE if it feels that the edu-
cational needs of its students will be better
served through the use of the unadopted text-
24% English and foreign
book.32 From the 1993-94 school year language
through the 2004-05 school year, the state science and health
granted 4,588 textbook waivers. Forty-three 43% social studies
percent of these waivers were granted for
English and foreign language textbooks, 22 3% math
percent for science and health textbooks, 4 4%
reading
percent each for social studies and math text-
4%
books, 3 percent for reading textbooks, and miscellaneous
24 percent for textbooks in miscellaneous
subjects33 (see Figure 2). 22%
Waivers under P.L. 221-1999
Under Public Law 221 (P.L. 221), which is
Indiana’s accountability law established in
Are Indiana’s Public Schools in Need of Education Deregulation? — 5
Instructional Time Waivers Do Superintendents Believe that Indiana K-
SUPERINTENDENT SURVEY 12 Public Education is Over-regulated?
The minimum number of instructional days
required in Indiana is 180, and if a school cor- Nearly all superintendents (95%) believe that
In November 2005, Center for Evaluation
poration fails to conduct the minimum num- Indiana has over-regulated public education,
and Education Policy researchers invited
ber, it is subject to a penalty. The penalty is a with only 5% believing that education is
Indiana public school superintendents to par-
reduction in the August tuition support funds appropriately regulated (Figure 3).
ticipate in a survey regarding education regu-
provided by the state to the school corpora-
tion. However, Indiana Code allows school lations. Of the 292 superintendents, 121 Is Over-regulation Due to Federal, State, or
corporations to apply for a waiver from the (41%) completed the survey. Regarding dis- Local Regulations?
trict locale, 65% of the superintendents clas-
penalty if the relevant instructional days were
sified their district as rural, 14% suburban, Of the superintendents who believe education
canceled due to extraordinary circum-
stances.36 Individual school corporations are 12% urban, and 9% town. In comparison, is over-regulated, 63% indicated that this sit-
42% of the 292 districts in the state are clas- uation is caused by a combination of federal,
seldom granted waivers in this category,
sified as rural, 15% suburban, 9% urban, and state, and local regulations (Figure 4). An
although blanket waivers have been issued by
34% town. equal number of superintendents (18%) feel
the state superintendent of public instruction
that over-regulation is primarily due to fed-
on occasion to all school corporations when
eral or state regulations. No respondents
an extreme number of days have been missed
replied that over-regulation is primarily due
due to severe winter weather.
to local regulations.
Figure 3
Repeal of Obsolete Statutes
During the 2005 session, the Indiana General Is Education Over-regulated?
Assembly passed House Enrolled Act 1288
(PL 1-2005) to address the recodification of
Title 20, the section of the Indiana Code per- 5%
taining to elementary and secondary educa-
tion. The purpose of the recodification was to
restructure Title 20 to make it more logically
structured after the passage of a multitude of
yes
new education laws over many years. No sub-
no
stantive changes were made to the provisions
of Title 20; however, it was reorganized under
a new code structure.
Senate Enrolled Act 397 (PL 231-2005) also
95%
was enacted in 2005 to coincide with the
recodification of Title 20. It not only made
amendments to Title 20, but also repealed
several obsolete provisions from the law in an
effort to remove unnecessary regulations.37 Figure 4
The repealed provisions were part of Indiana
Code 20-23-16, which includes miscella-
neous provisions concerning the organization If Over-regulated, Due to Which Set of Regulations*
of school corporations. These rules dealt
mainly with payment of school aid bonds
during reorganization, the power of consoli-
18%
dated school boards to levy taxes within the
limits of the school corporation to meet main-
Federal
tenance costs, the transportation of students
affected by consolidation, county school con- State
solidation, the annexation of territory by All levels
18%
school corporations, and the financial respon-
sibilities of school corporations involved in 63%
annexation of territory.38
* 115 respondents answered this question
Are Indiana’s Public Schools in Need of Education Deregulation? — 6
Figure 5
Laws to Repeal According to Superintendents
60
54
50
nts 41
e
d
n 40
e
nt
ri
e
up 30 25 24
s
of
r 17 16
mbe 20 13 12 11
u
n
10
0
NCLB P.L. 217 special financial P.L. 221/ unfunded instructional curriculum/ other
education restrictions ISTEP+ mandates time nonacademic
regulatory area
Which Laws and Regulations Would Super- ing sub-group expectations in special educa- respondents as specific regulations they
intendents Like to See Repealed? tion students.” Another administrator went so would like to see repealed. One superinten-
far as to say, “NCLB is ridiculous because it dent indicated that Article 7 (Indiana’s spe-
When asked to identify specific statutes that
is not research-based and does not adhere to cial education law) should not exceed the
they thought should be modified or repealed,
statistical possibilities for continued requirements of IDEIA (the federal special
111 superintendents (92%) provided specific
improvement. Reporting regulations have education rule and the federal regulations).
responses that can be organized into the fol-
required us to hire more personnel.” Several would like to repeal the provisions of
lowing nine categories, in decreasing order of
IDEIA that deal with the discipline of stu-
frequency: (1) NCLB; (2) P.L. 217; (3) spe- In the next most frequent category, 41 super-
dents in special education, such as the “con-
cial education; (4) financial restrictions; (5) intendents cited laws pertaining to P.L. 217.
tinuation of services for expelled special ed
P.L. 221 and ISTEP+; (6) instructional time Thirty-six cited P.L. 217, collective bargain-
students.” One superintendent, in reference to
and professional development; (7) curricu- ing, or teacher tenure. For example, one
due process regulations, said “Parents need to
lum and nonacademic requirements; (8) administrator said that “there are too many
be held accountable for costs when they take
unfunded mandates; and (9) miscellaneous hoops to go through to change education at
schools to hearing or court and the schools
(see Figure 5). the local level because of this law…discus-
are found to be correct in what they have
sion goes too far to keep me from implement-
done.”
NCLB was the most commonly cited regula-
ing change.” Five suggested ways in which
tory category. Of the 54 superintendents who
the law could be changed. One respondent Twenty-four superintendents cited regula-
identified NCLB, 32 superintendents believe
stated that “[P.L. 217] prevents changes that tions pertaining to the financial restrictions
the entire law should be repealed or at least
are needed for improvement in achievement category. Included in this category were
amended. One superintendent’s comment
because teachers hide behind the law … one responses referring to the budget process,
echoes the general belief that “NCLB needs
suggestion is to eliminate the status quo con- funding formula, student attendance require-
to be changed. With less funding and more
tracts when master contracts end.” Two ments, property tax control, construction
mandates, they are setting schools up for fail-
superintendents suggested replacing collec- laws, and grant use restrictions. For example,
ure.” Twenty-two superintendents referred to
tive bargaining with a state salary schedule. one superintendent said “I would like to be
specific NCLB provisions that are burden-
able to more easily move money between
some. The most frequent provisions cited Twenty-five superintendents referred to regu-
funds,” while another referred to the budget
were those pertaining to highly qualified lations pertaining to special education. The
process as a “Rube Goldberg paper chase.”
teacher regulations, AYP requirements, and Individuals with Disabilities Education
Still another superintendent said he would
reporting requirements. For example, one Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEIA), Article 7,
like to “remove [the] maximum levy for [the]
respondent cited “NCLB regulations stipulat- and Section 504, were all referred to by
capital projects fund.”
Are Indiana’s Public Schools in Need of Education Deregulation? — 7
Seventeen superintendents referred directly Sixteen superintendents cited other regula- Do Superintendents Find Existing State
to P.L. 221 (Indiana’s accountability law) or tions that did not fit within the eight main cat- Flexibility Options to be Useful?
ISTEP+. One respondent suggested changing egories. Examples of these include high
P.L. 221 to “allow principals to name school school graduation requirements, charter Most superintendents (n = 85, 70%) find
improvement committees,” referring to the school enabling law, legal settlement issues, existing flexibility options to be useful,
stipulation that teachers must be union mem- fire and severe weather drills, all state and although four superintendents qualified their
bers to be eligible for appointment to the federal regulations, and reporting require- responses. Only 34 superintendents (28%) do
committees. ments. not find the flexibility options to be useful
(two superintendents did not respond). Not
Thirteen superintendents stated that unfunded surprisingly, most of the superintendents
mandates should be repealed or cited specific (71%) who indicated that they have not uti-
mandates that they want to see repealed lized any of the flexibility options indicated
because of a lack of funding. One administra- . . .the federal government that they do not find them to be useful.
tor in citing all unfunded mandates stated, has increasingly stepped up
“They are restrictive and funding is not its role in the regulation of If superintendents stated that they did not find
present to support them. School budgets are current flexibility options to be useful, they
tight in Indiana.” The specific unfunded man- public education in an were asked to explain their response: 16 of
dates referred to by the administrators include attempt to improve the the 34 (47%) feel that the available options
those for foreign language programs, special quality and equity of are not sufficient or properly aligned with the
education preschool, Prime-Time aides, bul- education across the U.S. current regulatory environment and 15 (44%)
lying committees, and transportation. find the process of applying for waivers or
complying with stipulations involved in
Thus, schools appear to be
Requirements and restrictions pertaining to waivers (for example, proving the need for a
operating in a heightened
instructional time and professional develop- waiver) to be too cumbersome. Three admin-
ment time were cited by 12 superintendents. regulatory environment. istrators believe that current flexibility
Most of these respondents feel they should options are inconsistent and are not clearly
have more flexibility in determining how defined, with one superintendent stating that
much time per day their students spend in there has been “less flexibility during the last
instruction, or how many instructional days 12 months.”
are necessary per year. Some feel they should Have Districts Utilized Any of the Existing
have more flexibility in determining how pro- Flexibility Options Offered by the State? How Would Superintendents Change the
fessional development time is used, such as Regulatory Structure of K-12 Education?
one superintendent who stated that “The six Ninety superintendents (74%) reported hav-
Not surprisingly, superintendents provided a
one-half professional development days ing received textbook waivers, 77 (64%)
range of opinions about how to change Indi-
should be able to be used as three profes- received instructional time waivers, 54 (45%)
ana’s regulatory environment for education.
sional development days or any combination received non-standard course/curriculum
Responses can be classified into six catego-
up to three days.” Eleven superintendents waivers, 13 (11%) included waiver requests
ries: more local control or increased flexibil-
cited curriculum requirements or nonaca- in a school's improvement plan under P.L.
ity; no unfunded mandates; repeal or amend
demic requirements. Nonacademic require- 221, 3 (2%) have charter schools operating
P.L. 217; equalize the regulations applied to
ments listed range from “all requirements not within their district, none have applied for
traditional and charter schools; consolidate/
related to the education of students” to “being Freeway School status, and 17 respondents
eliminate/limit power of entities; and miscel-
required to deal with social issues which we (14%) indicated that their districts have not
laneous suggestions (Figure 6).
have no control over, for example, obesity.” utilized any of the flexibility options. Table 3
Indeed, when superintendents cited specific presents the flexibility options used by super- Fifty-one superintendents (42%) said they
nonacademic requirements, they most often intendents broken down by whether they would give school boards more control, or
referred to wellness legislation or social believe public education is overregulated. increase the amount of flexibility provided
issues. locally. Some gave specific examples of what
local school boards should have control over,
such as one respondent who said, “I would
TABLE 3.
Views on Regulation and Use of Waivers/Flexibility Options
Is Education Charter Freeway Waivers under Nonstandard Textbook Instructional None
Over- Schools Schools P.L. 221 Curriculum Waivers Time Waivers
regulated? Waivers
Yes 115 2 0 12 52 86 71 17
No 6 1 0 1 2 4 6 0
Total 121 3 0 13 54 90 77 17
Are Indiana’s Public Schools in Need of Education Deregulation? — 8
Figure 6
Regulatory Changes Proposed by Superintendents
60
51
50
s
t
n 40
ofe
er nd 27
be 30
mnt
uri
npe 20 12 9 8 8
u
s
10
0
increased local no unfunded repeal/ amend equalize consolidate other
control mandates P.L. 217 charter entities
schools
regulatory area
return authority for curriculum requirements boards to deal with collective bargaining, and Eight superintendents suggested consolidat-
and time with students to the local school many superintendents suggest having the ing, eliminating, or limiting the power of spe-
boards.” Another said, “Give more control state take over the responsibility of determin- cific entities in some way. For example, one
back to local boards, especially in the expen- ing teacher salaries. Another common com- superintendent recommended eliminating
diture of locally raised property taxes.” The plaint is that it is difficult to remove local school board structures, and another
majority, however, simply said that school ineffective teachers because of teacher tenure would like to limit the authority of the
corporations should have more control. A and protection laws. One superintendent Department of Local Government Finance.
few of these acknowledged that local school says, for example, that “it is too difficult to Still another said, “There are too many enti-
districts should be held accountable for aca- get rid of long-term but ineffective certified ties with their hands in the batter. Consolidate
demic achievement by the state or federal employees. Teachers need to know that they the DOE, the Education Roundtable, and the
government but want control over how to need to stay current and be effective in the Department of Workforce Development into
accomplish this goal, such as one administra- classroom in order to maintain their employ- one entity that is apolitical.”
tor who said, “Hold us accountable for results ment status.”
and let the district decide how best to accom- Twenty-seven superintendents (22%)
plish the expected results.” Eight superintendents (7%) made sugges- referred to changes they would make that did
tions that referred to equalizing the regula- not fit within the main five categories. Exam-
Twelve superintendents (10%) said that they tions applied to traditional and charter ples of some of these changes include lessen-
would get rid of unfunded mandates. Some schools. Some said they would deregulate ing the politics involved in public education,
felt that unfunded mandates should simply be traditional public schools to the same level as changing how student improvement is mea-
eliminated, while others said they would charter schools, while others said they would sured, streamlining reporting, and shifting the
make compliance with unfunded regulations make charter schools comply with the same role of the IDOE from mandating compliance
optional or contingent on funding. One super- regulations as those required of traditional with regulations to providing support for
intendent said “all mandates should be public schools. One superintendent said, “All improving student achievement. A few super-
funded 100% by the branch of government public schools should have the same rights intendents recommended appointing the
that passes them.” Another said, “When a [as] charter schools. If we weren't so regu- superintendent of public instruction, and a
mandate is given by the state it must be a lated there would be no need for charter few recommended appointing school boards
funded mandate or it should not be required.” schools!” (In a separate question, 81% of instead of electing people for these positions.
respondents agreed that school corporations
Nine superintendents (7%) said they would would benefit from the exemptions offered to Ninety-eight respondents (81%) said school
either repeal or amend P.L. 217. One common charter schools.) corporations would benefit from the exemp-
complaint about this law appears to be the tions offered to charter schools, 22 (18%)
amount of time and work it takes local school said they would not, and one did not answer.
Are Indiana’s Public Schools in Need of Education Deregulation? — 9
DEREGULATION IN OTHER STATES PROSPECTS FOR DEREGULATION
IN INDIANA IN 2006 Indiana Government Efficiency
Several states have passed deregulation legis- Commission
lation in recent years. The following are
examples of legislation passed since 2000. The actions of the state legislature to pass the
Indiana General Assembly
aforementioned bills will not be the lone
In 2000, the state of Kentucky passed House A number of education deregulation bills effort to address education deregulation this
Bill 884, which allows LEAs or superinten- have been filed at the time of this publication year. In 2005, the Indiana General Assembly
dents to request waivers from the Kentucky for consideration in the second regular session reestablished the Indiana Government Effi-
Board of Education that apply to reporting of the 114th Indiana General Assembly. In ciency Commission, in part to examine school
and paperwork requirements, except those particular, Senate Bill 323, as well as House funding. More specifically, a K-12 Non-
that concern federal law and anything relating Bill 1006, encompasses the deregulation com- Instructional Funding Subcommittee was cre-
to health, safety, and civil rights. North ponents included in the “Dollars to the Class- ated to examine and make recommendations
Dakota passed Senate Bill 2166 in 2001, room” initiative announced by Daniels and to reform K-12 education funding and budget-
allowing the Superintendent of Public Reed on December 28, 2005. Other bills to ing pertaining to non-instructional or non-
Instruction to waive rules regarding accredi- monitor that address deregulation include classroom expenditures so that additional
tation, as long as the waiver request has the House Bill 1312 and Senate Bill 324. funds are available for student instruction and
potential to result in improved educational teacher training. The Subcommittee began its
opportunities and encourages innovation. In broad terms, both SB 323 and HB 1006 work in November 2005, and Mr. Steve
Two states passed deregulation legislation in would provide school corporations with Baranyk, Chairman, has stated at public meet-
2003. New Mexico enacted Senate Bill 80, explicit authority and latitude to enter into ings that the Subcommittee will meet bi-
which allows schools to waive certain financial arrangements (e.g., pooling of weekly through August 2006 to study these
requirements that do not interfere with resources and consolidation of purchases issues and develop recommendations for con-
NCLB, such as accreditation review, length between multiple school corporations) to sideration by the governor, IDOE, and SBOE,
of school day, graduation requirements, and generate more money for classroom instruc- and possible action by the legislature in 2007.
the purchase of instructional materials. Ten- tion and to diminish the cost of non-instruc- Undoubtedly, the recommendations of the
nessee enacted Senate Bill 1024, allowing the tional and administrative expenses. The role Subcommittee will be greatly impacted by the
Commissioner of Education to authorize a of education service centers would be actions of the Indiana General Assembly on
maximum of 16 LEAs to implement alterna- enhanced to facilitate the purchase of a vari- the various education deregulation bills.
tive education programs that focus on school- ety of products and services on behalf of par-
based decision making. In 2004, Illinois ticipating school corporations, including
signed Senate Bill 3091 into law, amending energy, textbooks, insurance, food services,
its school code. The code now allows for facilities maintenance, and other supplies and
waivers or modifications of mandates (within services. The legislation also calls on the
the school code and State Board rules) that SBOE to put forth efforts to examine state-
can be requested by joint agreement of LEAs wide purchasing of such items as school
(or a regional superintendent acting on behalf buses, technology, and textbooks to reduce
of LEAs) and programs operated by the variations in costs locally and to provide
regional office of education.39 greater economies of scale to minimize these
expenditures statewide. Finally, the legisla-
tion would require the IDOE and the SBOE to
develop a plan to upgrade the financial man-
agement, analysis, and reporting systems for
school corporations and schools.40, 41
See Conclusions and
Recommendations on page 14.
Are Indiana’s Public Schools in Need of Education Deregulation? — 10