Charter operators are grasping at funding straws. They now want access to public school referendum tax dollars. But charters do not provide the same transparency of budget, expenditures, or governance and decision-making that public schools do. Before local property taxes go to charters, we should know how much their teachers are being paid and if they are getting insurance and benefits. We should know what is being spent in the classroom versus what is being spent on administrative costs. And we should know that we have a democratic voice in their governance—we should be able to elect their board members. In other words, to receive local property taxes, they should look and act a lot more like public schools than they do now.
Charters are not the only underfunded schools in Indiana. In the months leading up to May and November—election season in Indiana—parents, teachers, and community leaders meet, strategize, and hammer out the logistics of campaigns. They donate time and money, make calls and knock on doors, because they want their local school districts to be able to continue to offer theater and music, world languages, p.e., and art. They want reasonable class sizes. And they want to retain teachers, coaches, janitors, and bus drivers. They can’t depend on the state of Indiana to provide what’s needed. Their unpaid volunteer labor is required just to get a question on the ballot, and to make a case for why voters should say “yes.” Indiana is a referendum state, and has been for over a decade. What we call a “referendum” is known in other parts of the country as a “school tax levy”—a self-imposed additional property tax taken on by local voters to augment state funding for public schools. Usually this is for construction efforts, like building an addition or replacing windows. But in Indiana, it is also for day-to-day operations, like paying a classroom teacher. For example, the operational school tax levy, or referendum, for Monroe County Community School Corporation pays for 80 classroom teachers. What brought Indiana public schools to such dire straits? Then-governor Mitch Daniels centralized the bulk of school funding and then cut the state school budget by $300 million in 2009. Indiana has underfunded its schools every year since. Not only has school funding not kept up with inflation, but lawmakers have channeled billions in public funds into private schools (through the school choice voucher program) and charter schools, which are called public schools in statute but are privately managed and appoint their own boards. Simply to maintain adequate levels of staffing and programs for students, school districts must pass referenda. In this way, referenda are an instrument of disparity: districts that have the capacity—in terms of a tax base, volunteers, and businesses and individuals willing to pitch in to pay for a campaign—can pass a referendum and maintain the quality of their schools. School districts that don’t are forced to make painful cuts, losing teachers and programs. Now, with House Bill 1072, which passed out of committee Thursday, Jan 20, 2022, legislators want to force school districts to share those desperately needed referendum funds with charter schools attended by children living in the school district boundaries. The state’s Legislative Services Agency calculated what the cost of this would be in the fiscal note attached to the bill: “In 2021, there were a combined 67 school operating or safety referenda levies. If school corporations were required to distribute a portion of their levies to nonvirtual charter schools, charter schools would have received an estimated $24.8 M of the $402.8 M certified referenda levies.” In other words, had the proposed law been in place in 2021, 6% of the money generated by school referenda would have gone to charter schools. This is offensive on multiple levels. To state it baldly: Charter schools do not share the basic mission of serving all students in a community. They do not welcome and make room for every child. They do not answer to communities through elected boards. They should not be funded at the expense of the schools that do. Here are seven reasons that lawmakers should reject House Bill 1072:
House Bill 1072 now goes to the full House for consideration. Contact your legislator and tell them to vote NO. Let sharing referendum funds be a local decision as it involves local tax dollars. P.S. Want to get more specific about who to contact? Back in the dark ages…oh actually, back in 2020, it was controversial to even imagine giving school districts the option to share referendum proceeds with charters. An addendum to a bill that was sneaked in at the last moment said that districts *could* share referendum proceeds with charters. That addendum barely made it through. These senators voted against the amendment. Ask them to vote NO again. Sen Alting (R) Sen Becker (R) Sen Bohacek (R) Sen Boots (R) Sen Breaux (D) Sen Buchanan (R) Sen Crider (R) Seon Donato (R) Sen JD Ford (D) Sen Freeman (R) Sen Glick (R) Sen Grooms (R) (retired, replaced by Kevin Boehnlein) Sen Koch (R) Sen Lanane (D) Sen Melton (D) Sen Mrvan (D) Sen Neimeyer (R) Sen Niezgodski (D) Sen Randolph (D) Sen Ruckelshaus (R) (replaced by Fady Qaddoura) Sen Stoops (D) (retired, replaced by Shelli Yoder) Sen Taylor (D) Sen Tomes (R) Sen Walker (R) Sen Young (R) These representatives voted against the bill when it came back from the Senate with the new language. Ask them to vote NO again. Rep Cook (R) Rep Frye (R) Rep Lyness (R) Rep McNamara (R) Rep Pressel (R) Rep VanNatter (R) Rep Vermillion (R) Rep Young (R) And if you live in one of these districts, your district passed an operating or school safety referendum in 2016 or later. Contact your legislators and tell them to vote NO on HB 1072. Anderson Community School Corporation, Madison County Avon Community School Corporation, Hendricks County Barr-Reeve Community Schools, Daviess County Bartholomew Consolidated School Corporation, Bartholomew County Beech Grove City School Corporation, Marion County Benton Community School Corporation, Benton County Bremen Public Schools, Marshall County Brown County Schools, Brown County Cannelton City School Corporation, Perry County Carmel Clay School Corporation, Hamilton County Clark-Pleasant Community School Corporation, Johnson County Clinton Central School Corporation, Clinton County Crown Point Community School Corporation, Lake County Culver Community School Corporation, Marshall County Duneland School Corporation, Porter County Eminence Community School Corporation, Morgan County Franklin Community School Corporation, Johnson County Frontier School Corporation, White County Gary Community School Corporation, Lake County Goshen Community Schools, Elkhart County Hamilton Community School Corporation, DeKalb & Steuben Counties Hamilton Southeastern Schools, Hamilton County Hanover Community School Corporation, Lake County Indianapolis Public Schools, Marion County Lake Central School Corporation, Lake County Lake Station Community Schools, Lake County Lanesville Community School Corporation, Harrison County Monroe County Community School Corporation, Monroe County MSD Boone Township, Porter County MSD Decatur Township, Marion County MSD of Southwest Allen County, Allen County MSD of Warren Township, Marion County MSD Washington Township, Marion County MSD Wayne Township, Marion County Noblesville School Corporation, Hamilton County Noblesville Schools, Hamilton County Northeast Dubois County School Corporation, Dubois County Oregon Davis School Corporation, Starke County Prairie Heights Community School Corporation, LaGrange County River Forest Community School Corporation, Lake County School City of Hammond, Lake County School City of Hobart, Lake County School City of Mishawaka, St. Joseph County School Town of Munster, Lake County School Town of Speedway, Marion County Sheridan Community Schools, Hamilton County Smith-Green Community School Corporation South Bend Community School Corporation, St Joseph County Southeast Dubois County School Corporation, Dubois County Southern Wells Community Schools, Wells County Tri-County School Corporation, White County Union Township Community School Corporation, Porter County Vigo County School Corporation, Vigo County Wa-Nee Community School Corporation, Elkhart County West Lafayette School Corporation, Tippecanoe County Western Wayne Schools, Wayne County Westfield Washington Schools, Hamilton County Westview School Corporation, LaGrange County Zionsville Community Schools, Boone County –Jenny Robinson and Keri Miksza P.S. Our state Indiana Coalition for Public Education has clipped some excellent testimony on HB 1072: Dr. Robert Taylor, executive director of the Indiana Association of School Superintendents, expresses his concerns about charters being prone to closing. Representative Cherrish Pryor, House District 94, remembers how charters were sold as being able to do a better job with less money.
Indiana Coalition for Public Education–Monroe County (ICPE–Monroe County) advocates for all children to have high quality, equitable, well-funded schools that are subject to democratic oversight by their communities.
We are a nonpartisan and nonprofit group of parents, grandparents, caregivers, teachers, and other community members of Monroe County and surrounding areas. Join Us. 
The following is testimony opposing SB 167 by ICPE–Monroe County's vice chair, Jenny Robinson, at the Indiana Statehouse on Wednesday, January 5, 2022. You can watch it here.
Chairman Raatz, members of the committee: Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I am here as a parent of three children in public schools to oppose Senate Bill 167. I fear that this bill would feed division between schools and families. I agree with this bill’s authors that the connection between families and schools matters. Parental involvement in a child’s education is important, indeed crucial. It is in the best interests of children for the relationship between families and schools to be mutually respectful, supportive, and collaborative. Our structures should lay the groundwork for this. This bill assumes that school districts and classrooms are not transparent and responsive. In my personal experience, the opposite is true. As a parent, I have always had many avenues to learn more about my children’s classrooms. I am invited into them in school open houses, where I meet my kids’ teachers. I have volunteered in classrooms, in the school library, and on field trips. I have attended school curriculum nights and PTO meetings. I can become an “observer” of my child’s classes on Canvas, an online class management system. I sign syllabi that my kids are required to bring home and show me. I can email my kids’ teachers and principals at any time, and when I do, I always receive a prompt reply. And most importantly, I get to vote for my school board members. Parents can also run for school board. Our school boards are democratically elected, and that keeps our public schools accountable to our communities. Parents can already communicate if they are uncomfortable with an aspect of a literary work and how that would affect their own kids. A student in my son’s class was able to choose not to watch a movie of Lord of the Flies because of discomfort with profanity in it. I respect that they were able to make the choice for their child--but I would be alarmed and upset if other parents’ fears and discomforts were able to dictate the information and content that my own kids have access to in school. That’s why I am concerned about these curriculum review committees that SB 167 would set up. Why should a small group of parents have the power to restrict what my kids, and other people’s kids, get to learn about in school? What if this curriculum review committee didn’t like aspects of the state standards and made recommendations that conflicted with the state standards? I’m a parent, but I tell you that this bill gives too much power to parents. Children should have rights as individuals, beyond their positions in families. Their access to information and education should not depend solely on their parents and should not be circumscribed by the limits of their parents’ knowledge and imagination. A December 30 report in the IndyStar said that 50 children in Indiana died in the last year due to abuse or neglect. 80% of the 59 alleged perpetrators were parents. When children are abused and neglected, parents are often the ones responsible. Yet this bill would not only give parents power to opt their kids out of curriculum, it would also require parental consent before children receive mental health services. In some sad cases, this would give the abuser of a child the power to deny that child access to counseling, therapy, or other mental health supports. The language of the bill is not coherent. Teachers would be barred from teaching that any political affiliation is inherently oppressive. Nazism is a political affiliation. Surely we would not want to bar teachers from communicating that Nazism is bad. My greatest concern with this bill is that it would make it harder for social studies teachers to approach important topics like race. I agree–I think it’s common sense–that children should not be made to feel guilty for the sins of the past. But no social studies teacher has ever made my kids, who are white, feel guilty, and I don’t know a single teacher who would feel that was effective pedagogical practice. The bill sets up a straw man. At the same time, it would have a chilling effect on the teaching of history because it would expose schools to expensive litigation for factors that are outside of teachers’ control–the emotional response of students to a lesson. Slavery was racist. Jim Crow was racist. Neighborhood covenants that barred Black and Brown people from housing were racist. The father of my son’s music teacher had to leave the state of Indiana to marry his white wife; it was not legal for them to marry here, and that was a racist law. Would you hide these aspects of our history? Would you have teachers avoid them in the name of protecting students’ feelings? Students in Indiana should be taught actual history in school, not myth or propaganda. Senate Bill 167 is unnecessary and potentially deeply harmful. Please oppose it. Thank you for your time.
Indiana Coalition for Public Education–Monroe County (ICPE–Monroe County) advocates for all children to have high quality, equitable, well-funded schools that are subject to democratic oversight by their communities.
We are a nonpartisan and nonprofit group of parents, grandparents, caregivers, teachers, and other community members of Monroe County and surrounding areas.
The following is an opinion piece by members of the Indiana Coalition for Public Education, Phil and Joan Harris.
An article by Carson TerBush, published in Chalkbeat on December 15th, describes the Indiana legislature’s attempt in their next session to put in place multiple education bills to ensure that educational content for Indiana K-12 public schools is controlled. This legislation is described as only intending to monitor public schools; however, the Curriculum Control Committees are designed to censor state-approved textbooks, professional instructional materials and books in school libraries. If every school district creates an advisory curriculum committee, does that mean we will have 291 different curricula taught in Indiana schools? Will these “advisory” Curriculum Control Committees be reviewing all instructional materials including math, science, social studies and language arts? With committees composed of 40% parents and 20% members of the public able to control what is being taught in our schools, why would we need a State Department of Education and certified teachers? According to the author, elected school boards will have the ultimate power to accept or reject the recommendations of the committee. If so, what purpose does the committee really serve other then to attempt to censor materials they may not agree with and to pressure their elected boards to override the thinking of professional educators? Is the reference to obscene language in some books an attempt to further censure ideas that allow children to grow in their critical thinking skills? It seems more like an attempt to pretend the last 30-plus years of a coarsening of the culture didn’t happen and is a repeat of the effort from at least the 1980s. Is this an attempt to prevent the teaching about the history of enslaved people and the racism that is deeply embedded in our culture? If we ignore the role that race has played in the formation of our laws and policies, which Critical Race Theory addresses principally in law schools, nothing will change. The attack is directed at every level of public education: school boards, curriculum decision committees, library materials, and what teachers say and do in their classrooms. Teaching children to engage in problem solving and to use their critical thinking skills, and providing them with the tools they will need to be able to make judgments regarding the wide range of social issues they will encounter, is essential to preserving the health of our democracy. This proposed legislation raises the most fundamental question with regard to our public schools: What is the purpose of our public education system? One answer appears clearly in our state's constitution: Knowledge and learning, generally diffused throughout a community, being essential to the preservation of a free government; it shall be the duty of the General Assembly to encourage, by all suitable means, moral, intellectual, scientific, and agricultural improvement; and to provide, by law, for a general and uniform system of Common Schools, wherein tuition shall be without charge, and equally open to all. Elsewhere, that same document refers to a "general and uniform system of common schools." The education bills currently festering in the legislative chambers of the Hoosier State will in no way meet the aims our state's founders sought for their schools and will instead hamstring that most democratic of institutions, the local school board. “But what can I do?” you say. Contact your local elected representatives by phone or e-mail. Write letters to your local newspaper. Attend your local school board meeting and ask questions about how curriculum materials are selected. Support Indiana Coalition for Public Education-Monroe County and local parent-teacher organizations even if you don’t have children in school. Democracy depends on your participation.
Indiana Coalition for Public Education–Monroe County (ICPE–Monroe County) advocates for all children to have high quality, equitable, well-funded schools that are subject to democratic oversight by their communities.
We are a nonpartisan and nonprofit group of parents, grandparents, caregivers, teachers, and other community members of Monroe County and surrounding areas.  During the last days of the Trump administration, the Office of Management and Budget, citing the nefarious influence of Critical Race Theory (CRT), banned all government agencies from any “training or propaganda effort that teaches or suggests either (1) that the United States is an inherently racist or evil country or (2) that any race or ethnicity is inherently racist or evil." In a later speech from the National Archives, Trump called CRT “a Marxist doctrine holding that America is a wicked and racist nation.”
Now conservatives across the country are sounding the alarm and trying to shackle teachers and ban books that introduce any aspect of CRT into schoolrooms. In Loudoun County, Virginia, conservative activists shut down a School Board meeting with shouting, physical intimidation, and singing the national anthem. As the Loudoun School Board stated itself, there is little evidence that CRT, as such, is being taught anywhere in their schools. What is being taught, more likely, is a narrative—and active discussion—of U.S. history that acknowledges the terrible evil of slavery and its ongoing effects in U.S. society. It’s possible that CRT informs some of this teaching, but it is likely only one of several possible conceptual frameworks used. Conservatives call this “indoctrination,” not education. What they seem to prefer is a bland patriotic history that papers over all conflict in the name of “national unity.” Oxford defines indoctrination as “the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.” This seems closer to what conservatives want than what they assert is really happening in schools. They believe that CRT is divisive and pits Americans against one another, putting all the “blame” on Whites. They carry protest signs that derisively interpret the acronym as “Creating Racial Tension.” Yet the racial tension in our country was established long ago, kept alive through ongoing policies and practices, and exacerbated recently by the open license given to expressions of White supremacy. CRT encourages all of us to take responsibility for coming to terms with this. CRT does not argue that the U.S. is “inherently racist or evil,” or that Whites are such either. Nor does it have much to do with Marx. Rather, CRT provides an honest, empirically verifiable set of concepts for understanding how and why racism has become so deeply embedded in our society and psyches. The evidence for structural racism in all of our public institutions—in law, housing, policing, education, and public health—is overwhelming, and now accepted by the vast majority of social scientists. Hardly a study exists that does not confirm what CRT insightfully documents: Blacks face forms of discrimination and brutality—even when they have economic wealth—that Whites will likely never encounter. They also face a huge generational wealth deficit, compounded by the fact that their free labor quite literally created much of the wealth of colonial and Independent America that launched us on the road to becoming a superpower. Other variants of CRT (TribalCrit, LatCrit) extend these historical insights to America’s Indigenous and Latinx peoples. This is not a “Marxist” doctrine, which would emphasize class exploitation over race. Calling it such is a pathetic attempt to conjure one of the age-old bogeymen of American political demagoguery. And when you hear CRT associated with another common target of the conservative worldview, “identity politics,” you must remember this: the original dividers, those who birthed identity politics in this country, were those who created the caste system under slavery and perpetrated the genocide of Indigenous Americans. They divided the nation into the “worthy” and “unworthy,” the “civilized” and the “savage,” the “human” and the “subhuman.” The Irish, Italians, even the Jews—they were all considered inferior races until they embraced their whiteness (alas, the benefits of Jews’ whiteness remain precarious, it would seem). Contemporary identity groups like the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys perpetuate this deeply un-American story of “us” and “them.” Is it any wonder that those whose identities have been racially oppressed now try to garner some dignity and hope from the same? CRT is part of an educational effort to reckon with these foundational divisions, to examine how they continue to vex our efforts to fulfill the American dream of justice and liberty for all (see R. Delgado and J. Stefancic’s Critical Race Theory). In most versions of CRT, racism has indeed become a “permanent” feature of U.S. society, but it is neither inherent nor inexorable. It is permanent only until fully recognized and transformed. The point of CRT is to encourage analysis and discussion, not indoctrination. Again, from Whites we seek not blame, but civic responsibility, and a sense of solidarity. Even a cursory glance at the remarkably rich corpus of writings that has come to be known as Critical Race Theory should convince you of one thing: this is a deeply American scholarly endeavor to come to terms with the way racism continues to manifest in our society. I hope that more Americans will explore the insights CRT has to offer. I invite more Americans into our schools and our university classes to witness the hopeful conversations, and the hard reckoning, that CRT—among many other forms of anti-racist scholarship—has helped to inspire. —Bradley A. Levinson Board member of Indiana Coalition for Public Education–Monroe County and Professor of Education at Indiana University, Bloomington. |
Categories
All
Archives
March 2024
Friends
|
RSS Feed
Proudly powered by Weebly