IBJNews

Indiana requests new No Child Left Behind waiver

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Democratic Schools Superintendent Glenda Ritz submitted Indiana's request for a new waiver from the No Child Left Behind requirements on Monday in the hopes that the state can avoid losing control of how some of its federal education money is spent.

The filing beat a deadline set by U.S. Department of Education officials for the state to submit a new waiver that addresses concerns raised by federal monitors. At stake is control over a portion of the more than $200 million in federal "Title I" education funding that Indiana receives each year.

Staff from the Ritz administration, Gov. Mike Pence's education and jobs agency, the General Assembly and the U.S. Department of Education worked intensely over the past two months to craft the new application.

"Because of their work, I believe that Hoosier schools will have much needed flexibility over how they use some of their federal funding. Most importantly, this flexibility will improve education for our students," Ritz said in a statement.

Federal officials told Ritz in April that problems with the state's monitoring of low-performing schools had placed the state's waiver in jeopardy. They also expressed concerns about the state's teacher and principal evaluation system, which yielded surprisingly few poor reviews earlier this year and raised doubts among conservative education advocates who sought the changes.

Ritz staff members said they were promised a response by the end of July, but did not say if that is a hard and fast deadline. The federal review of the state was completed last August and Ritz's staff said they were promised a response in the fall, but did not receive the state's review until many months later.

The decision came shortly after Indiana became the first state to exit the national Common Core education standards, but federal officials said they were fine with the alternative education standards the state developed.

As a part of the negotiations over the new waiver, federal officials said that this fall the state would have to begin using a new statewide standardized test, written to the education rules replacing the Common Core standards. A new, second test will be used in the following school year, crafted more closely to the state's new standards.

The crafting of the state's new waiver also ended a period of relative calm at the State Board of Education, which has been home to the most visible political battles between supporters of Ritz and supporters of the education changes pushed by former Republican Schools Superintendent Tony Bennett.

Tensions were high at a special meeting last week that was called to review the state's waiver request. Ritz who chairs the board, scrapped with Republican board members Brad Oliver and Dan Elsener over whether she had been open enough with the board.

The partisan squabbling does not appear to be reaching levels like last year, however. Ritz's failed lawsuit accusing the state's board members of violating the state's public access laws spurred U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan to quip on the "dysfunction" from the state's education leaders.

Meanwhile, Democratic elections lawyer Bill Groth refiled the suit in Marion County last December. The case is still pending.

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. Aaron is my fav!

  2. Let's see... $25M construction cost, they get $7.5M back from federal taxpayers, they're exempt from business property tax and use tax so that's about $2.5M PER YEAR they don't have to pay, permitting fees are cut in half for such projects, IPL will give them $4K under an incentive program, and under IPL's VFIT they'll be selling the power to IPL at 20 cents / kwh, nearly triple what a gas plant gets, about $6M / year for the 150-acre combined farms, and all of which is passed on to IPL customers. No jobs will be created either other than an handful of installers for a few weeks. Now here's the fun part...the panels (from CHINA) only cost about $5M on Alibaba, so where's the rest of the $25M going? Are they marking up the price to drive up the federal rebate? Indy Airport Solar Partners II LLC is owned by local firms Johnson-Melloh Solutions and Telemon Corp. They'll gross $6M / year in triple-rate power revenue, get another $12M next year from taxpayers for this new farm, on top of the $12M they got from taxpayers this year for the first farm, and have only laid out about $10-12M in materials plus installation labor for both farms combined, and $500K / year in annual land lease for both farms (est.). Over 15 years, that's over $70M net profit on a $12M investment, all from our wallets. What a boondoggle. It's time to wise up and give Thorium Energy your serious consideration. See http://energyfromthorium.com to learn more.

  3. Markus, I don't think a $2 Billion dollar surplus qualifies as saying we are out of money. Privatization does work. The government should only do what private industry can't or won't. What is proven is that any time the government tries to do something it costs more, comes in late and usually is lower quality.

  4. Some of the licenses that were added during Daniels' administration, such as requiring waiter/waitresses to be licensed to serve alcohol, are simply a way to generate revenue. At $35/server every 3 years, the state is generating millions of dollars on the backs of people who really need/want to work.

  5. I always giggle when I read comments from people complaining that a market is "too saturated" with one thing or another. What does that even mean? If someone is able to open and sustain a new business, whether you think there is room enough for them or not, more power to them. Personally, I love visiting as many of the new local breweries as possible. You do realize that most of these establishments include a dining component and therefore are pretty similar to restaurants, right? When was the last time I heard someone say "You know, I think we have too many locally owned restaurants"? Um, never...

ADVERTISEMENT