ILNews

Head Start considered a school

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
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.
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 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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT