Head Start considered a school

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Teachers who work for a federally funded program to help children prepare for kindergarten are not eligible under Indiana statute for unemployment during summer breaks, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today.

In South Bend Community School Corporation v. Linda D. Lucas, No. 93A02-0705-EX-387, the majority of judges agreed with South Bend that Head Start institutions should be considered schools under Indiana statute and therefore, its teachers are not allowed to collect unemployment during the summer.

Lucas works as a teacher at Head Start, which operates from August to June and is a federally funded program and public entity established pursuant to an agreement among 12 public school corporations. Head Start teachers work in classrooms located inside elementary schools and work with teachers of students in other grades to help create a smooth transition for students.

Lucas filed for unemployment insurance benefits during her 2006 summer break, and the Unemployment Insurance Review Board found she was eligible for the benefits because Head Start is not a "school" as defined by Indiana Code 22-4-2-37. Employees of schools are ineligible under Indiana statute to receive unemployment benefits during summer breaks.

South Bend schools appealed the decision, arguing Head Start programs should be considered schools under Indiana statute.

The interpretation of Indiana statute is key to the outcome of the appeal. The courts have decided when a court is faced with two reasonable interpretations of a statute - one of which is supplied by an agency in charge of enforcing the statute - the court should defer to the agency.

The judges examined the dictionary definitions of "educational institution," "school," and "institution," as well as the statutory definition of school.

Head Start is a consortium of 12 educational institutions, which operates in other educational institutions, and its academic calendar is identical to that of the schools responsible for its operation, wrote Chief Judge John Baker. Even though Head Start teachers are not paid during the summer break, their health benefits do continue.

"Inasmuch as Head Start is virtually identical to a school and is inextricably intertwined with the member public school corporations, we can only conclude that the legislature intended that Head Start be treated as an educational institution for the purpose of unemployment compensation," he wrote. He was joined in the decision by Judge John Sharpnack.

In addition, the purpose of the Unemployment Act is to provide funds for people who become involuntarily unemployed because of adverse business and industrial conditions. The Court of Appeals had previously determined this did not include teachers on their summer breaks. There is no evidence Lucas was involuntarily underemployed by adverse business conditions, Chief Judge Baker wrote, and for Lucas to receive benefits would create a windfall. He reversed the lower court decision.

In a separate dissenting opinion, Judge Patricia Riley agreed with the Review Board's decision finding Head Start not to be an educational institution or school. She points out subsection 5 of I.C. Section 22-4-2-37, which states that "school" does not include "an organization offering preschool training, not part of the public or parochial school system." Head Start is not accredited by the Indiana State Board and is federally funded. It is a preschool program for both education and social development.

Judge Riley also wrote that as the majority of judges pointed out in their opinion, the quoted standard of review is to defer to the agency when the court is faced with two reasonable interpretations of a statute. She believes the majority reached the wrong result and would affirm the Review Board's decision.

Post a comment to this story

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 Indiana Lawyer 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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  2. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  3. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.

  4. rensselaer imdiana is doing same thing to children from the judge to attorney and dfs staff they need to be investigated as well

  5. Sex offenders are victims twice, once when they are molested as kids, and again when they repeat the behavior, you never see money spent on helping them do you. That's why this circle continues