Indiana House OKs bill limiting teacher contracts

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana House on Friday approved a bill prohibiting contracts between school districts and teachers unions from including anything other than wages and wage-related benefits.

The Republican-controlled House voted 52-40 largely along party lines in favor of the bill, which is part of GOP Gov. Mitch Daniels' aggressive education agenda.

The proposal would put the limits on contract agreements between local districts and unions representing teachers and any other school employees, such as bus drivers, custodians and nurses, starting in July.

Supporters say teacher contracts shouldn't include details that do little to improve academics, such as requiring comfortable teachers' lounges.

Rep. Robert Behning, R-Indianapolis, said the collective bargaining limits were aimed at giving school administrators and school boards the flexibility to make decisions on running the districts without being bound by contract clauses that sometimes have been around for decades.

"We're allowing a coach to come in and do what we want — take the team across the finish line — without tying their arms around their back," said Behning, who is chairman of the House Education Committee. "What this bill does is provide the opportunity for educational leaders to lead."

Leaders of the Indiana State Teachers Association, the state's largest teachers union, have argued against the bargaining restrictions, saying that the contracts are negotiated locally and that school district leaders must agree to any provisions.

More than 1,000 teachers attended a Statehouse rally in February denouncing the bargaining limits, along with Republican-backed proposals to tie teacher salaries with student performance and create vouchers that would direct taxpayer money to private schools.

Democrats argued during Friday's debate that the bill would give too much control to school administrators over issues such as the school calendar, class sizes, hiring and evaluation procedures.

Rep. Greg Porter, D-Indianapolis, said he believed the bill was aimed at limiting the influence of the teachers unions and showed a lack of respect for teachers.

"Their work environment is the learning environment of our children, our grandchildren, our nieces, our nephews," he said.

Six Republican House members joined all Democrats present in voting against the bill.

The Senate already has approved a similar version of the bill, but agreement on a single version must still be reached before it goes to the governor.

The House-passed proposal would allow school districts to agree on new teacher union contracts with provisions beyond wages and benefits until July 1. Those new contracts wouldn't be allowed to extend beyond June 2013.


  • teacher contracts
    here we go again lets do what the governor wants, not what is best for the people teaching our kids. primary time is near lets get rid of puppets that can"t do what we voted them to do.

Post a comment to this story

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Can your dog sign a marriage license or personally state that he wishes to join you in a legal union? If not then no, you cannot marry him. When you teach him to read, write, and speak a discernible language, then maybe you'll have a reasonable argument. Thanks for playing!

  2. Look no further than Mike Rowe, the former host of dirty jobs, who was also a classically trained singer.

  3. Current law states income taxes are paid to the county of residence not county of income source. The most likely scenario would be some alteration of the income tax distribution formula so money earned in Marion co. would go to Marion Co by residents of other counties would partially be distributed to Marion co. as opposed to now where the entirety is held by the resident's county.

  4. This is more same-old, same-old from a new generation of non-progressive 'progressives and fear mongers. One only needs to look at the economic havoc being experienced in California to understand the effect of drought on economies and people's lives. The same mindset in California turned a blind eye to the growth of population and water needs in California, defeating proposal after proposal to build reservoirs, improve water storage and delivery infrastructure...and the price now being paid for putting the demands of a raucous minority ahead of the needs of many. Some people never, never learn..

  5. I wonder if I can marry him too? Considering we are both males, wouldn't that be a same sex marriage as well? If they don't honor it, I'll scream discrimination just like all these people have....