Sch. Consol. Pg. 4

Indiana School Consolidation
Developments (Pg. 4)

School Consolidation (Pg. 1, incl. index) (Pg. 2) (Pg. 3, incl. 2009 bills) (Pg. 4) (Pg. 5, 2010 General Assembly)

Too Many Districts? Probably Not - If You Take Into Account Factors Other Than Cost (Editorial, The Journal Gazette, 1/29/09)

(The following, by editorial writer Karen Francisco, was originally published in the Ft. Wayne Journal Gazette on August 12, 2007.)

    Property tax panic has placed another of Gov. Mitch Daniels' favorite topics back on the table: School district consolidation.
    "We have far too many layers, elected offices, geographic units, school districts and overhead," Daniels said last month, calling for long-term reform of government as a means of reducing property taxes.
    The governor has long complained that Indiana has too many school corporations, each with well-paid superintendents and central office bureaucracies that represent a drain on education and tax dollars.
    By the numbers, it would appear he is right. For example, comparing Huntington County, northeast Indiana's only county with a single public school system, with the similarly sized DeKalb County, with three districts, suggests that taxpayers benefit if they support a single district.
    But financial considerations must be balanced with what's best for students, what's practical for residents and what effect consolidation will have on the heart and health of a community.
    "If you look at it only in terms of dollars and cents, that's probably unfair," said Tracey Shafer, superintendent of Huntington County Community Schools. "Any advantage that a consolidated model would give, people will point out that there are disadvantages, too."
    The superintendent ticks off a few: The distance can be great, particularly for residents of the southeast part of the county traveling to Huntington North High School. Weighing school delays or cancellations is tricky - one area of the county can be shrouded in fog when other areas are not. Parent involvement can suffer if the parents must drive too far.
    Then there's the issue of community.
    Undeniably, there is a resistance from Indiana superintendents for further consolidation, but it's not the primary roadblock that the governor seems to believe. Community opposition has more to do with it than any self-preservation efforts by superintendents. John Ellis, executive director of the Indiana Association of Public School Superintendents, points to Jac-Cen-Del and South Ripley school corporations, in southeast Indiana, where school officials twice recommended merging and voters twice rejected it by overwhelming margins.
    Even in Huntington County, residents haven't forgotten the way things used to be.
    "We're 20-plus years down the road on consolidation, and people still talk about it," Shafer said. "Somewhere, the community values have to be considered."
    He points to Andrews Elementary School, replaced with a new building in 2004. Logistically, it wasn't the best site for the district to place an elementary school, but it was the ideal location for the small community of Andrews.
    Those local-level judgments are the ones that Indiana school officials - and the people they serve - have been weighing for more than 40 years. The School Corporation Reorganization Act of 1959 set up 92 county committees to create more efficient and uniform school districts. Over the next decade, it reduced the number of districts from about 900 to 400. The last consolidation approved was in 1991, when Whitley County Community Schools became the state's 293rd district.
    Indiana is not out of line with neighboring states. Ohio has 613 public school districts public school districts, Illinois has 873 and Kentucky has 176. In terms of population, the ratio of districts to residents is similar.

    Neither does Indiana have an abundance of administrators. According to National Center for Education Statistics data, central office staff account for less than 1 percent of the state's public school personnel. Only 13 states claim smaller percentages. Illinois' percentage is almost double Indiana's, and Ohio has more than three times the percentage of central office administrators.
    The 1960s consolidation drive ultimately resulted in about 20 countywide districts. Most, like Blackford, are small counties geographically. Huntington is a unique example in that 70 percent of its population lives in the northern 50 percent of the county, according to Shafer. DeKalb County is more typical of what happened statewide: Its township districts were consolidated into three larger corporations.
    Paring the number of districts by more than two-thirds represents far more progress than has been done at Indiana's township level of government, where 1,008 units of government continue. Consolidation of schools takes out not just administrative positions but inevitably school buildings and a community's identity, given that the school is the seat of cultural and social events in many small towns.
    From recent consolidation overtures made by the governor, the General Assembly and a government efficiency committee, school officials have moved the focus to shared services and cooperative agreements. It might not mean the elimination of superintendent jobs that the governor had in mind, but it better suits communities in providing services. More important, it cuts costs to taxpayers. That should be the ultimate goal.
    To encourage those efforts, the General Assembly appropriated $200,000 over the next two years for school districts to study "the feasibility of consolidating or merging services with another corporation." The Indiana Department of Education is now accepting proposals for grants of up to $25,000 for the studies. The deadline to apply is Wednesday. The department's Risa Regnier said only one application has been received so far, from the Cowan and Daleville districts in Delaware County. The two small districts want to look for ways to share services, including offering courses to students in both districts that would be cost-prohibitive for either to do alone.
    That's the same area that Alan Middleton, superintendent of Garrett-Keyser-Butler Community Schools, cites as an example of where the three DeKalb County districts could benefit, not only in cost saving but also in improving course offerings to students.
    Middleton, now in his 20th and final year as superintendent, said he doesn't foresee any further district consolidation, given the community differences between Garrett and Auburn, for example. But he points out that shared services already are in place among the three school districts in terms of special education and vocational school cooperatives, a countywide program with the probation department to oversee in-school suspension programs, bus maintenance and other programs.
    "What you get down to if you combine administrative functions is that you don't really disintegrate any jobs because you have greater distances to cover. You might have one food service director over all the districts, but you would still need a satellite director at each school," he said.
    A policy brief released last month by Indiana University's Center for Evaluation and Education Policy concluded that the research on the merger of small districts does not offer compelling evidence of cost saving, but more convincing evidence that it has no significant effect on school performance.
    "Motivations to consolidate should be clearly vested in the increased efficiency of school corporation operations and not with expectations of improved academic results," according to the policy brief.

School Size Doesn't Dictate Quality (Superintendent Rocky Killion, The Courier Journal, 1/29/09)

(Killion is superintendent of schools for West Lafayette Community School Corp. and this article was originally published in the Lafayette Courier Journal on 1/27/09.)

The Kernan-Shepard report contains several recommendations for public schools. One recommendation is to reorganize school districts to achieve a minimum student population of 1,000. "Indiana has too many school districts and administrators, but Indiana does not have too many schools. We recommend retaining geographically dispersed schools to allow districts to maintain optimal class sizes and serve local populations and needs" (Report, p. 28).

How do Indiana public schools compare with other states? Karen Franciso provided the following comparison in an article she wrote for the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette published Aug. 12, 2007:

"Indiana is not out of line with other states. Ohio has 613 public schools, Illinois 873, and Kentucky 174. In terms of population, the ratio of districts to residents is similar to Indiana. Neither does Indiana have an overabundance of administrators. According to National Center for Education Statistics data, central office staff accounts for less than 1 percent of the state's public school personnel. Only 13 states claim smaller percentages."

In 1959, there were 629 Indiana school districts with 500 or fewer students. By 1991, with the consolidation of schools in Whitley County, the number of school districts in Indiana went to 293, its current number. It seems to me that our public school systems have been following the Kernan-Shepard report's recommendation since 1959. Also, there seems to be a belief that financial gain will be achieved by consolidating school districts with less than 2,000 students. Duncombe and Yinger (2001), in their study of the New York schools consolidation between 1985 and 1997, concluded the following:

"Consolidation is likely to lower the operating cost of two 300-pupil districts by over 20 percent. It is likely to lower costs of two 900-pupil districts by 7 to 9 percent. Consolidation is likely to have little or no impact on operational costs of two 1,500-pupil districts and above."

There is no solid data to support that the elimination of school districts will improve education, enhance cost-effectiveness or promote great equality. With an exception for extraordinary circumstances, district reorganization should be a voluntary decision of local voters and school boards. Size does not guarantee success, as "good schools come in all sizes" (2003 study from Louisiana Department of Education).

Do Indiana public schools have a disproportionate number of administrators compared with other states? An analysis performed by the Educational Research Services shows that the number of Indiana central office administrators (superintendents, assistant superintendents, business managers, etc.) ranked 39th among the 50 states nationally. For Indiana public schools, this equates to less than 1 percent of all personnel employed. Principals and assistant principals ranked 45th among the 50 states in the same category.

If the governor is serious about streamlining government and decreasing wasteful spending, I would suggest that he consider the issue of delayed property taxes owed to schools and other government entities. In 2008, because of the delay in receiving tax money from the county, the West Lafayette Community School Corp. had to borrow more than $12 million to cover operational costs. WLCSC taxpayers paid more than $340,000 in interest because the school district did not receive its tax money on time. If this holds true for all 293 school districts in the state of Indiana, just imagine how much money taxpayers (you and I) had to pay in interest because the money owed to school districts was not paid on time? Tackle this issue and millions of dollars paid by taxpayers will be saved.

Base School Consolidation On Quality Of Education (Editorial, Courier Journal, 1/29/09)

(The following editorial was originally published by the Lafayette Courier Journal on 1/27/09.)

If you want to start an argument in Indiana -- or in most states in the union -- just utter the words: school consolidation.

Consolidating schools, often the heart of rural communities and urban neighborhoods, is never an easy task. But ensuring that school corporations are big enough to offer students the classes and support they need, while operating efficiently, is worth the trouble.

The Kernan-Shepard report, which includes more than two dozen recommendations for government reforms, initially proposed consolidating school corporations that had fewer than 2,000 students.

The proposal has been changed to put the figure at 1,000.

Any number that gets picked will be somewhat arbitrary, but the lower number seems more reasonable than the 2,000 figure set earlier.

An examination of school data for smaller school districts would show that many corporations with fewer than 2,000 students achieve impressive results at lower-than-average costs.

Rossville schools, for example, score above state averages in just about every category. With an enrollment of about 1,040, it would seem ripe for consolidation if one looked only at the number of students. But if one looked at student achievement, it would seem clear that Rossville schools are providing students with a good education at a reasonable price.

Rather than use enrollment data to determine what school corporations should consolidate, a better gauge would be to look at three criteria:

First, whether students are performing at levels that are above state averages or on par with comparable schools and districts.

Two, whether the curriculum and class choices give students the education they need to succeed in college.

Three, whether the cost on a per pupil basis is reasonable. (Is it close to the state average and to national averages?)

Some small districts are among the best in the state -- of any size. Some large school corporations fail year after year to improve student achievement. If the goal of reform in school governance is to provide good educations at a reasonable price, then the criteria shouldn't be based on enrollment.

The Kernan-Shepard report also addressed Indiana's 238 taxpayer-funded library districts.

The commission found that 400,000 Hoosiers do not have library services.

It proposed that each county create a library district. This would shrink the state's 238 districts down to 92. The proposal of creating countywide library districts should not close branches. Instead, it would extend services to residents who currently are excluded.

Indiana's public library systems are some of the best in the nation, but if 400,000 people have no access to services, there is something lacking.

The Kernan-Shepard report is a starting point for reform. It seems to have spurred some inside library systems to consider change.

Nick Schenkel, the West Lafayette Public Library director, says that many libraries are proposing to work together as the Indiana Public Library Coalition.

If the coalition's plan includes library services for all Hoosiers and fiscal efficiency, then there is common ground to begin work on a compromise.

The goal should not be to adopt the Kernan-Shepard report word for word. Rather, it should be to find a more efficient models of government that serve constituents well.

*The following originally appeared in The Indianapolis Star on February 1, 2009 in a point/counterpoint format. (2/4/09)

School streamlining

Should operations of small school corporations be consolidated, with savings used to improve learning?

Gov. Mitch Daniels, in an effort to streamline operations, wants school districts with fewer than 1,000 students to consolidate administrative functions with other districts. This would affect 48 Indiana districts.

Tony Bennett, newly elected Indiana superintendent of public instruction, supports the idea. He says the savings could be used to expand learning opportunities, thus helping students thrive. Schools within districts would not be consolidated.

Smaller districts are not opposed to consolidation when it helps provide more services to students, says John Ellis, who heads the Indiana Association of Public School Superintendents. But he cautions that size does not always improve education and save money.

Create districts big enough to offer top-notch learning

By Tony Bennett

Whether they realize it or not, as Hoosier students sit in class each day, they are competing against millions of other students across the country and around the world. As the economy becomes more globally competitive, so do skilled trades, admission into America's great university system and, ultimately, all job opportunities. Until the preparation we give Indiana students becomes more globally competitive, they'll leave high school a step behind their peers.

It is imperative that we give our students every possible advantage as we prepare them to become productive members of society. This means offering them choices in foreign language classes, giving them opportunities to excel in Advanced Placement classes, and providing more than the basic science and math courses. At the same time, we should strive to offer smaller classrooms where they can receive more individual attention from teachers, and those teachers should be the best and brightest in the business.

To accomplish these goals, we must drive more dollars into our classrooms by merging overhead costs, streamlining school corporation operations and making a strong commitment to use existing dollars in a more efficient manner. In these tough economic times, when family and government budgets are shrinking, the administrative consolidation of school districts is a clear option that must be explored.

Let me be clear, the administrative consolidation of school districts is not school consolidation. No one is suggesting the merger of any two schools in Indiana. The legendary teacher who made a difference in your life will still be there to teach your children. The high school sports rivalries that mean so much to Hoosier communities will be unaffected. School consolidation runs counter to my strong belief that Indiana needs smaller schools, smaller class sizes, and more and better-paid teachers.

The administrative consolidation of school districts will affect some adults, but it won't adversely affect any students. Students will be the winners, because the merger of central administrative offices will free up additional funds for student learning opportunities. By spending less money on administrative overhead and more money on student learning, our students will be better prepared for postsecondary opportunities.

For example, consider a county with two school districts. One has 10,000 students and three high schools, while the other has 1,000 students and one high school. It is very likely that both districts hire a superintendent, transportation director, curriculum director and other administrative personnel, and pay them similar salaries. By merging the administrative aspects of these districts, schools could minimize costs and maximize efficiencies. The result could be an 11,000-student, four-high school district operating with few noticeable differences beyond the benefits: funding for additional teachers, expanded curriculum, new skilled-trade programs and countless additional learning opportunities.

The goal of administrative consolidation is for our schools to establish districts large enough to provide top-notch learning opportunities for all students. The reality we face today is that we have small school districts where there is not a single licensed physics teacher in counties with four, five, seven -- even 16 school districts. We have small districts that offer only one foreign language in counties with three or four other districts. We have counties where multiple small districts do not produce one student who takes or passes an Advanced Placement exam. In short, we aren't offering our students the best education possible.

We must always do what's best for our students. What's best for our students is providing superior learning opportunities. In these tough economic times, all avenues for providing those opportunities must be explored, including the administrative consolidation of school districts.

Let voters, school boards decide on reorganization

By John Ellis

Recently, Gov. Mitch Daniels wrote a superintendent stating: "I have said there is no 'magic number' of students when it comes to considering consolidation of small school corporations. Nor will I make forced consolidation part of my agenda. I do believe that all efforts up to and including consolidation should be considered when it comes to offering a rich curriculum and giving community members the maximum value for their tax dollar."

I agree with this statement, and a review of research bears it out.

A study of New York schools consolidated between 1985 and 1997 found consolidation of two 300-pupil districts is likely to lower operating costs by more than 20 percent. It may lower costs of two 900-pupil districts by 7 percent to 9 percent. Consolidation of two 1,500-pupil districts is not likely to have any impact on operational costs. The needs and conditions of each school corporation must be considered carefully to determine whether consolidation will be of benefit.

The 2008 Indiana General Assembly offered an excellent resource for small districts by providing consolidation/merged services study grants. To date, 21 school corporations in eight counties have availed themselves of this opportunity to research the potential of such mergers. Fourteen of these corporations have less than 1,000 students enrolled. This shows districts are not opposed to consolidation when it helps provide more services to students while giving the community good value. However, we need to consider all the facts to avoid false expectations.

The governor has been quoted as saying the 48 districts that enroll fewer than 1,000 students have "too many superintendents and an array of assistant superintendents."

Here are the facts:

These 48 districts employ the full-time equivalent of 44.76 superintendents -- less than one superintendent per district (.93).

Of these corporations, one plans to reduce the superintendency to a half-time position next year, and another is considering the same change.

Only one corporation listed a full-time central office administrator other than the superintendent -- the director of special education. Another district listed a part-time assistant, a retired administrator who comes in a few days each year to complete grants and "Title" program applications.

A report from the National Center for Educational Statistics ranks Indiana's total number of central office administrators 49th of the 50 states. Only Arizona had fewer central office administrators as compared to teachers.

One way to save taxpayers' money is to eliminate unneeded buildings. Indiana has districts that have labored for years to reduce high schools, including one district of five high schools with combined enrollments of 4,320. Closing 200,000 or more square feet results in far greater savings than any staff reduction. However, to garner support, the governor proposed a five-year moratorium on closing high schools in consolidated districts. Local studies within the district should determine whether a building is closed.

A study from the Louisiana Department of Education found, "Elimination of school districts is not a clear indication of improved education, cost-effectiveness, or better quality. District reorganization should be sought as a last resort." The same study determined, "There is no universal agreement on the ideal size for schools or districts. Thirty years of research shows four factors consistently affect student achievement: smaller school size (300-500 students); smaller class size, especially at elementary schools; challenging curriculum; and more highly qualified teachers."

There is no solid foundation for the belief that elimination of school districts will improve education, enhance cost-effectiveness, or promote equality of educational opportunity. Except for extraordinary circumstances, district reorganization should be a voluntary decision of local voters and school boards. Size does not guarantee success. Good schools come in all sizes.

Analysis Of Indiana Advanced Placement Exam Results By School System Size (Russ Phillips, 2/7/09)

Governor Daniels is recommending consolidation of small school systems to improve "operational efficiency" and " educational opportunities." Improved cost efficiency has been rebutted elsewhere on this site. The primary purpose of this article is to cast doubt on the notion that creating more "educational opportunities" usually results in significantly improved overall achievement of students. Although not the purpose of this article there are other issues besides these two that need to be carefully reviewed when considering consolidation.

It is vital in education that we ask the following: What are we doing? Why are we doing it? What results are we getting? This is certainly the case regarding Advanced Placement courses as discussed here.

Assuming that efficiency and opportunities are legitimate areas to focus upon Daniels suggests that it is only these smaller systems that need to improve in these areas. However, the facts suggest otherwise.

There is much emphasis these days on Advanced Placement (AP) courses. These are college-level courses that may be taken during high school. Daniels argues that one of the shortcomings of smaller systems is the fewer number of AP courses offered, i.e. "opportunities."

AP Exam grades are reported on a 5 point scale, from 1 to 5. Students who earn AP Exam grades of 3 or above are generally considered to be qualified to receive college credit and/or placement into advanced courses. However, the awarding of credit and placement is determined by each college or university.

The table below shows across the top the enrollment of school corporations (not individual schools). Down the left side it is showing the percent of AP exams that received a score of 3, 4 or 5. The blue bars, with the actual number in parentheses, show the number of corporations in that category. For example, the first bar shows there were 11 corporations, each with fewer than 1,000 students, with somewhere between zero and ten percent of the exams being scored either a 3, 4 or 5. Conversely, between 90 and 100% of these exams were not scored a 3, 4 or 5. (Enrollment data is for the 2008-09 school year as provided by the IDOE here. The number of exams taken in the spring of 2008 and the number of exams scored 3, 4 or 5 was obtained from the IDOE here. It should be noted that a student may take more than one (1) exam. Also, by looking at the IDOE information you will note that some corporations had just several exams taken while other systems had several hundred. The same information also shows several systems that gave exams, however, score information is not provided. These schools are listed below the table. Additionally, below the table is a list of systems, with enrollment, that are not included in the AP results provided by IDOE. IDOE also provides here the number of students tested and the percent of 11th and 12th graders tested.

In the table, a corporation with more than one high school has the average of the schools reported.

There are 37 different AP courses in a wide variety of subject areas that are available. The table information does not indicate how many of these courses are taught in each school system.

One observation from the table: It shows that many students, regardless of system size, taking AP exams (i.e. Daniels' "educational opportunity") did not receive a score of 3, 4 or 5, thus, did not qualify to receive college credit and/or placement into college advanced courses. This begs several questions that policy makers as well as educators and parents should be asking.

**Results, By Indiana School Corporation Enrollment, For AP Exams Scored 3, 4 or 5**
	<1,000	1,000-1,999	2,000-4,999	>=5,000
0-10% >=3	xxxxxxxxxxx(11)	xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx(17)	xxxxxx(6)	xx(2)
11-20%	xxxxx(5)	xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx(19)	xxxxxxxx(8)	xx(2)
21-30%	xxxxx(5)	xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx(20)	xxxxxxxxxxxxxx(14)	xxxxx(5)
31-40%	xxxxx(5)	xxxxxxxxxxxxx(13)	xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx(18)	xxxxxxxxx(9)
41-50%	(0)	xxxxxxxxx(9)	xxxxxxxxxxxx(12)	xxxxxxxxxxx(11)
51-60%	xxx(3)	xxxx(4)	xxxxxxxxxxx(11)	xxxxxxxx(8)
61-70%	(0)	xx(2)	xxxxxxx(7)	xxxxxxxxxxx(11)
71-80%	(0)	x(1)	xxxxx(5)	xxxxxxxx(8)
81-90%	(0)	x(1)	(0)	(0)
91-100%	(0)	(0)	xx(2)	(0)

The following gave exams, however, the results are not provided by IDOE. In parentheses the school enrollment is listed followed by the # of exams given.

Heritage Jr.-Sr. High School (849; 4)
New Washington Middle-High School (489; 6)
Wes-Del Middle-Senior High School (457; 3)
Waldo J. Wood Memorial High (314; 5)
Princeton Community High School (696; 2)
Elwood Community High School (530; 4)
Perry Central Jr.-Sr. High School (536; 3)
Hebron High School (352; 3)
William Henry Harrison High School (1,414; 6)
Tecumseh Jr.-Sr. High School (425; 2)
Salem High School (663; 2)

The following school corporations are not listed by IDOE as administering AP exams. In parentheses is the school corporation enrollment.

Flat Rock-Hawcreek School Corp (1,028)
Barr-Reeve Community Schools, Inc. (740)
North Daviess Community Schools (1,098)
Bloomfield School District (1,105)
Southeast Dubois County School Corporation (1,440)
Southwest Dubois County (1,767)
Madison-Grant United School Corporation (1,516)
White River Valley School District (846)
Shenandoah School Corporation (1,366)
Medora Community School Corporation (285)
Crothersville Community Schools (548)
Dewey Township Schools (168)
MSD of New Durham Township (895)
South Central Community School Corporation (855)
Loogootee Community School Corporation (1,047)
Eminence Community School Corporation (537)
Spencer-Owen Community Schools (2,976)
Southwest Parke Community School Corporation (917)
Cannelton City Schools (294)
New Harmony Town & Township Consolidated School (169)
Jac-Cen Del Community School Corporation (915)
Milan Community Schools (1,289)
Scott County School District 1 (1,384)
Southwestern Consolidated School Shelby County (735)
Hamilton Community Schools (543)
West Washington School Corporation (896)

The seventeen (17) school corporations that had 71% or more of their exams scored 3, 4 or 5 are as follows:

Northwest Allen County Schools
Zionsville Community Schools
Liberty-Perry Community School Corporation
Greater Jasper Consolidated Schools
Fairfield Community Schools
Goshen Community Schools
Carmel Clay Schools
Avon Community School Corporation
Greenwood Community School Corporation
Westview School Corporation
Lake Central School Corporation
School Town of Munster
Paoli Community School Corporation
Duneland School Corporation
Penn-Harris-Madison School Corporation
Lafayette School Corporation
West Lafayette Community School Corporation

School system consolidation is being promoted as a way of creating more "educational opportunities," specifically, more Advanced Placement courses and higher level math/science courses as well as more foreign languages. However, it would be naive to assume that a few less school superintendents and some additional courses would lead to significant and widespread increased achievement of our students. The issues are far more complex than can be addressed by redirecting some dollars and adding some courses.

School Corporation Consolidation Bill On "Hold" After Testimony Given (retitled, Andrew Wilson, New Harmony School Foundation, 2/12/09)

(The following was originally published at www.newharmonyschoolfoundation.org by Andrew Wilson on February 12 and refers to the Senate Education Committee hearing that was conducted on February 11. Additional school consolidation postings will be found on the same site.)

Summary of Senate Education Committee Hearing
GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTIVITIES
Senate Education Committee

This afternoon, the committee heard SB 521, school corporation reorganization. Senator Dillon is the author of the bill. For a little over two hours, the committee heard testimony primarily by school corporation superintendents from small enrollment districts. The bill calls for school corporations under 500 in enrollment to be mandated to reorganize their central office with another school corporation. Corporations between 500 and 1,000 in enrollment could continue if they met standards that have not been established by the State Board of Education. If they did not meet these standards then they would have to reorganize. The unknown standards was a major issue with those opposing the bill. After Senator Dillon presented the bill, the Department of Education, the Governor's office, the State Chamber of Commerce, and Steve Gookins (interim superintendent at Lawrenceburg) testified in favor of the bill. The following superintendents then testified against the bill or at least questioning the need for the bill:

Cathy Stephen, Randolph Eastern
Judy Bush, Attica
Tony Nonte, Shoals
Bryan Harmon, Barr-Reeve
Bill Narwood, Jac-Cen-Del
Steve Patz, Rising Sun
Sandra Martinez, Whiting
Terry Sargent, Southwestern Shelby
Paul Garrison, Daleville
Fran Thoele, New Harmony
Dan Foster, Caston
Dan Sichting, Bloomfield
Jim Hanna, Rossville
Phil Ray, Union
Steve McColley, Wes-Del

These superintendents did an excellent job of presenting the case that small schools work both academically and financially.

Also testifying against the bill were: Bob Dalton, Small & Rural Schools Association; Andrew Wilson, New Harmony School Community Foundation; Russell Phillips, Caston school board member; and, Jim Hamilton, attorney for South Henry. Because of time restrictions, Senator Lubbers did not allow testimony from all of the education associations who all opposed the bill. Senator Lubbers held the bill and took no vote.

"Mission Statement - Caston School Corporation is committed to providing each student with the knowledge, skills, and abilities to function as tomorrow's exceptional citizens. Teachers, administrators, staff, and the at-large community are dedicated to seeing that the students develop to their full academic, vocational, and personal potential in order that they may take pride in themselves, their accomplishments, and their school. It is our goal that each individual at Caston School Corporation will do his/her utmost to teach, assist, counsel, and encourage one another in making our school the best center for a lifetime of learning."
(Policy # 2105)