IBJNews

Panel nixes transportation aid for charter schools

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

An Indiana Senate panel eliminated part of a proposal on Wednesday that would have required traditional public schools to help provide transportation to students attending charter schools.

The Republican-controlled Senate Education Committee approved the change, which makes the legislation aimed at expanding charter schools more palatable to traditional public schools. Some traditional school districts said it would have been too expensive to help provide transportation to charter schools, which are public schools free of many state regulations and, often, teacher union contracts.

The committee also made some other changes before approving the bill, such as taking away the ability for mayors of smaller cities to authorize charter schools. Supporters said smaller cities may not have the resources to provide rigorous oversight of charter schools.

"I think all of our goals need to be raising the achievement of students," said Sen. Earline Rogers, D-Gary. "There is a balance that can be struck between charters and traditional public schools. With these amendments what we do is create an atmosphere in which both can accomplish what their missions are."

The goal of the bill — which is part of Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels' sweeping education agenda — is to expand charter schools and give families more education options. The bill would create a state board to authorize more charter schools, and would give authorizing authority to private colleges and universities. Currently only the mayor of Indianapolis and public universities that offer four-year degrees can sponsor charter schools.

The bill would also allow charter schools to buy or lease for $1 a year unused buildings owned by traditional school corporations. And it would increase accountability for charters, providing penalties for chronically underperforming charter schools.

The Education Committee voted 8-2 for the amended bill, which next heads to another Senate committee for consideration.

The changes made Wednesday may complicate the bill's future because any changes would have to win approval from the GOP-led House before becoming law. Democrats are currently boycotting the House, and could put the bill in jeopardy if they continue to do so long term. Charter school supporters are hopeful that that won't happen, however, and House Democrats say the charter school legislation is not one of the main bills they are trying to derail with their boycott.


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. something to take iman's mind off CART,,,the league itsownself doesn't do it

  2. Someone mentioned a green roof. Every designer of a new urban building should be required to at least explore the feasibility of a green roof. The ability to cut carbon dioxide, save precious rainwater (drought this summer??) and re-use grey water, cool the building cheaper, and improve the view for neighbors, should be, not only the good neighbor thing to do, it should be the responsible neighbor thing to do. Too bad the city didn't require it when they gave up downtown green space for the Simon Building. Surprised they aren't requiring it now.

  3. About the same means down, like the TV ratings.

    My favorite tradition that needs to be brought back is the 25/8 rule.

  4. Your stats are incorrect. The 85k Government employees working in Marion County includes all government workers in Marion county. That is state, federal, non profit agencies, city and county. The stats the article list is the number of employees for all of the city/county employees and it is correct. That number includes the library, airport, convention center, and so on. The policy of extending benefits to domestic partners is consistent with private sector companies of the same size. Isn't the mantra of most conservatives "run the government like a business."

    Also, too say the "fiscal proposil is huge" without considering the actuarial factors involved is a bit of an overstatement. We really don't know if it is huge or not. If all of the people added to the plan are healthy and don't have claims then it could bring cost done or hold them neutral.

  5. There are 85,346 government employees in Marion county according to Stats Indiana.

    My understanding is that this proposal covers not only same sex partners and children, but opposite same sex partners who are not married and any kids.

    It also covers all city and county employees, plus municipal corporations which use city/county benefits packages including Health and Hospital Corporation (Wishard), Indianapolis Airport Authority, Indianapolis Convention Center,Lucas Oil,Bankers Life, Indianapolis Marion County Library, and Indianapolis Public Transportation Corporation (IndyGo).

    Certainly Indianapolis Public Schools will also want more benefits also.

    The fiscal cost on this proposal is huge.

ADVERTISEMENT