I don't know all the details of this bill, so I can't really argue with this objection:
"There's many, many legislators that don't even understand this bill," said Dan Clark, a lobbyist with the Indiana State Teachers Association. "We don't fully understand it. You can't even list all the rules and regulations this would apply to, and there's far too much confusion."
But the purpose of the bill is to loosen state reins over schools and give districts flexibility over textbooks, curriculums and programs. That seems to me a good thing, so I'm inclined to agree the bill's author, Sen. Jeff Drozda, R-Westfield:
"The more we can get away from state mandates on the local school districts and give the local authority more control, I'm all for that," said Drozda, an administrator at North Park Academy, a private elementary school on Indianapolis' Northwestside.
My feeling is the same as it was when the charter movement started, to let some schools get creative, free from many of the state rules that would hamper them. If the rules are so bad, why make schools "opt out of them"? Just get rid of them. It's really kind of refreshing that the state is beginning to realize that local school districts know best how to deal with local problems and opportunities.
Too bad no one was able to convince President Bush of that.
Comments
I agree 100% with you. If the rules are so bad, get rid of them. However, this is at the state level, what about the federal level? The No Child Left Behind Act has had many states not participate and therefore loose federal money. Why is the Federal Government in Public Education anyway?
The Federal Government collects our money and then passes legislation to give us back money to spend THEIR way, not the way it might be better spent. They take great credit in bringing money back to the state. How about this idea, don
profound gnome becomes memorizing stake in final: http://www.sulekha.com/Movies/moviereviewlist.asp?ref=rtextmv , memorizing is feature of coolblooded gnome