IBJOpinion

EDITORIAL: Let districts decide when to start classes

 IBJ Staff
January 29, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint
IBJ Editorial

It isn’t difficult to understand why state Sen. Mike Delph wants to force school districts to start their academic years after Labor Day; what’s perplexing is why Delph would want to slap a restriction on districts at a time they need more freedom to manage their own affairs.

Delph should put more energy into genuinely critical school reform and abandon the overreach.

The bill, which excludes year-round schools after a public hearing, moved to the full Senate this month after clearing the Senate Education Committee 6-3.

Delph has a point in believing districts have gone too far in starting school years earlier and earlier. At a practical level for many families, the traditional summer vacation season now ends in early August.

He’s also right that starting school later would cut air-conditioning costs and help students in buildings without air-conditioning focus on academics instead of the stifling heat.

But the legislation is unnecessary because the trend toward earlier starts will correct itself in time. Now that the statewide ISTEP test has been moved to spring from the fall, districts will feel less pressure to open their doors early in order to prepare students, and parents wanting to reclaim space in summer calendars will press school boards for later start dates.

Delph’s bill also runs counter to the promising movement in the General Assembly to deregulate local schools.

If the state demands that educators be compensated at least partly on student performance, it’s only fair to give districts as much flexibility as possible to reorganize the way they operate. To that end, a mandatory start date would be an additional burden.

Tepid progress on debt

President Obama is to be commended for devoting a great deal of his State of the Union address to the burgeoning national debt. Obama pointed out that the sheer size of the problem cannot be solved by tinkering around the edges and that hard choices will be necessary—a message that, coming from him, would have been unthinkable last year.

However, the president and the major political parties have much further to go in showing they’re serious about making those hard choices.

Obama’s debt commission in December recommended using mostly spending cuts, but also some tax increases, to slash the accumulated debt to 40 percent of the economy by 2035, a huge improvement from the 185 percent we’re currently hurtling toward. But the 18-member commission fell short of the 14 approving votes that would have triggered an up-or-down vote on the recommendations in Congress.

Liberals will need to allow cuts to social programs. Conservatives will need to consider at least some tax increases. And both parties will have to get serious about cuts to military and entitlement spending. Only the most extreme experts at either end of the spectrum believe the debt can be tackled without both spending cuts and tax increases.

Unfortunately, time is wasting while they squabble.•
__________

To comment on these editorials, write to ibjedit@ibj.com.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. So the Mayor adds another non value added layer to having a vehicle towed? Whereby the City Government RECIEVES AN ILLEGAL KICKBACK FROM A LGOISTICS COMPANY THAT SUBS THE WORK TO LOCAL TOW COMPANIES? What is the service the City performs for receiving the "tribute"? This is RICO!!!!! What a corrupt and unnecessary layer. What a dirtbag Mayor and his cronies.

  2. Owner occupied housing. Clear enough?

  3. So people think I am paranoid. It's from experience in dealing with puds requested by developers who make major donations themselves to representatives, have nice fund raisers for those running for office and hide through pac's. then there are the public relation firms. You will note some pr comments below. You there Clyde Lee? My opinion. Commercial along 421, great. Multifamily housing, terrible idea that will change the town. Senior condos or zero lot line homes west, great. I suggest keeping all entries to commercial areas at 421. All entries to owner occupied on sycamore. Will keep the traffic on sycamore down some. Two other things. You can't trust what will be there in 10 years. Steve builds quality stuff, but areas change over time. Look at the changes at the wall mart center at 86th and 421 over the last 10 years. Look at the apartments and neighborhoods behind St Vincent's. Raintree properties WILL decrease in value if commercial and multifamily goes in near. It has already been happening around the bridges area. The houses that have been sold recently are way below market. Several deals not closed due to the Illinois construction and the whole unsurety of the bridges. It's pretty simple, Zionsville will approve the whole thing because the city council has been groomed over a LONG period of time for this. I might even suggest some are in their position as a result of this.

  4. Esta, do you have a dog in this fight? You seem to really want to knock anyone against this project. No, I didn't move to Indiana for the architecture. I moved here for that red barn in the field. The horses and fields of corn. A place that is NOT overdeveloped. There are plenty of nearby places in Indianapolis that could be REDEVELOPED instead.

  5. RKW - OK, we get it, you're paranoid. The question is, are you paranoid enough? Greg - Yes, Pittman(s) is (are) at it again. They are developers, they build things. It's what they do. So when you go to work tomorrow, Greg, you're at it again too. Cliff - Really? You moved to Indiana for its progressive architecture? That's like moving to England for the cuisine. Zionsvillain - The house you moved to was once a field or woods. I'm willing to bet folks were upset when that ground was plowed under and a house was built. But I guess now that you are in, everything should stop? "My house was OK, but the next one is sprawl." SE Guy - Please don't paint us with such a wide brush. Most reasonable Zionsville residents welcome planned, measured development.

ADVERTISEMENT