Court Opinion

ID: 9704867
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 00:48:46.009731+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:06.175527
License: Public Domain

Judge, RILEY,
dissenting with separate opinion.
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion characterizing Head Start as an educational institution pursuant to Ind.Code § 22-4-2-37. Indiana Code section 22-4-2-37 determines “school” to be *36an educational institution that is accredited and approved by the Indiana state board of education and is an academic school system, whereby a student may progressively advance, starting with the first grade through the twelfth grade. This includes all accredited public and parochial schools which are primary, secondary, or preparatory schools. “School” does not include:
(1) a kindergarten, not a part of the public or parochial school system;
(2) a day care center;
(3) an organization furnishing psychiatric care and treatment;
(4) an organization furnishing training or rehabilitation for individuals with mental retardation or physical disability, which organization is not a part of the public or parochial school system; or
(5) an organization offering preschool training, not a part of the public or parochial school system.
Mindful of this statutory language, we first note that, unlike Indiana’s public schools which are funded through local property taxes, Head Start is a public entity entirely funded through federal grants. The program is not accredited by the Indiana State Board and its overall curriculum is subject to federal guidelines.
Furthermore, Head Start’s curriculum is focused on a multidisciplinary approach and intends to instill its young students with a mastery of certain skills, educational and otherwise, prior to entering kindergarten. While designed as a pre-school program, it serves primarily economically disadvantaged children, ages three to five, and attempts to enhance the children’s potential to succeed in school by providing development services to meet their intellectual, social, and health needs. Besides ensuring school readiness, as the majority points out, Head Start’s goals are much broader and even encompass “the participation of Head Start’s families and communities.” Op. p. 31. As such, I believe the educational aspect of the program to be incidental to its primary purpose of bringing the children to a level of social development where they are better equipped to deal with the environment of the traditional school.
In light of the evidence before us, I remind the majority of its quoted standard of review that “[w]hen a court is faced with two reasonable interpretations of a statute, one of which is supplied by an administrative agency charged with enforcing the statute, the court should defer to the agency.” Op. p. 32 (quoting Shaffer v. State, 795 N.E.2d 1072, 1076 (Ind.Ct.App.2003)). Based on the numerous differences that exist between the Head Start program— not in the least its funding and accreditation — and what is customarily regarded as a school, the Board reasonably and consistently interpreted the statute by excluding Head Start as an educational institution. Accordingly, by disregarding its own standard, I believe the majority reached the wrong result. I would affirm the Board’s decision in all regards.