Indiana has long struggled to identify authentic education issues and seek problem-solving initiatives that define and assist in these measures.
For two decades, we have been pulled between public, charter and private vouchers that has left educational policy falling flat. This philosophical disagreement has so escalated it drowns out the necessary ability to truly explore the needs in our school systems. We must get this right, do what is best for students and advance our profession, by having dedicated discussions where stakeholders’ voices are regularly heard and heeded.
Each year, the General Assembly enters into session after the New Year, at which time bills may be filed to address any number of issues. In education policy, ideas are lumped together into legislation titled “Education Matters” or “Various Education Matters” and often contain unrelated issues that should not be placed together in a bill due to controversy or not being related within the educational environment.
Voucher expansion, adjunct educators, teacher compensation and others have been controversial topics that are often tucked in other bills. Discussing and voting on these measures as standalone bills would increase transparency while alleviating the ability of legislators to have cover on contentious issues if embedded within another solid bill.
Meaningful dialogue with education experts — superintendents, administrators and educators — is essential to identifying issues that should be addressed in schools. Fewer debates and forums occur during the election process. Once officials are elected, they are hesitant to meet with educators due to contentious bill policy. Bills tend to be passed in Indiana before input is sought. When the Indiana State Board of Education attempts to implement policy, stakeholders testify with concerns. By no longer having an elected superintendent of public instruction, the department of education struggles to find neutrality while navigating proposed legislation and what will truly benefit our students.
The Science of Reading was recently passed as a method to ensure Indiana students could be kept on grade level. After a drastic and last-minute strategy, it was set to roll out this past summer. Without input from stakeholders, the various course offerings were put into place. Many educators had to readjust summer plans to acquire the training, some needed to complete the training for financial and/or licensure opportunities and some were so frustrated by this that they opted to wait and see if it would change, as education policy does so often.
Simple conversations within House and Senate districts could have prevented such turmoil. Instead, schools are once again greeted with new laws, but very little guidance on implementation.
The change in the high school diploma requirements is yet another example of the backward approach to leadership. After requirements were rolled out, many stakeholders actively testified for the state board of educaiton, explaining the very concerning ways we would not meet the needs of our students. Students should rightfully expect to attend a four-year high school and be eligible to attend a state university. Again, many changes occurred because educators brought real concerns to the table and have subsequently caused another draft of the proposed changes to occur.
Basic communication skills are missing between our legislators and constituents.
When we focus on these skills, we will be better apt to define educational issues and decide on strategies to implement solutions. If we want a model of excellence and a future that is attainable for students, we must be willing to have these difficult conversations before legislation is passed. How we are implementing education policy in Indiana is not efficient. We must do better for our students.
Melanie Wright is a member of American Federation of Teachers Indiana and a veteran teacher with Anderson Community Schools. This commentary previously appeared at indianacapitalchronicle.com. Send comments to [email protected].
