COA rules for IPS in advanced math class payment dispute 

Two parents who argue that Indianapolis Public Schools should have paid for their teen son’s college math class while he was in high school could not convince the Indiana Court of Appeals to rule in their favor in a Wednesday decision.

During the summer between their son’s freshman and sophomore years at Shortridge High School, Michael and Mary Poores explored the possibility of him taking a math class at Butler University during his sophomore year.

But their son, whose math talents have been advanced since a young age, was ultimately enrolled by IPS in a calculus class through the Indiana Online Academy for the fall semester of his sophomore year, with in-person support by IPS teachers.

There had been no discussion about any costs associated with a class at Butler until the online class became the only viable option to provide J.P. with math instruction during the first semester of his sophomore year. When the Poores insisted that their son be enrolled in a college math class, IPS refused to pay for the course, either at Butler or IUPUI.

The Poores then declined to accept IPS’s enrollment of their son in an AP calculus class at Arsenal Technical High School and instead paid $1,456.14 for a math course at IUPUI.

In May 2017, the Poores filed a complaint against IPS sounding in negligence, breach of contract, and deceptive practices and the Marion Superior Court conducted a bench trial. The court ultimately ruled for IPS on all claims, finding that the Poores failed to prove that a contract existed between them and IPS that required IPS to provide their son with a class at Butler free of charge, among other things.

Additionally, the trial court found that IPS is a “supplier” as the term is defined in the Deceptive Consumer Sales Act, and that the Poores failed to prove that IPS and its representatives committed an unfair, abusive, or deceptive act, omission or practice when presenting options to the Poores.

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, first finding that certain testimony attempted to be admitted by the Poores was not relevant and was properly excluded by the trial court.

The appellate court further agreed with the trial court’s determination that IPS was not negligent because IPS provided the necessary classes for J.P. to graduate with a Core 40 Diploma with Academic Honors.

“The statutory provision on dual credit requirements does not grant a student the right to attend the university or college of its choice with the high school required to pay the cost, nor does it include the opportunity for a student to shop around for a college class of his or her choice. Instead, the statute places the burden on the high school to make dual credit classes available to its students, which IPS satisfied through the IB program. Thus, based on the evidence before us, we concur with the trial court that IPS complied with its duty to provide J.P. with dual credit classes and therefore cannot be held to be negligent,” Judge Patricia Riley wrote for the appellate court.

The appellate court reversed, however, the trial court’s conclusion that IPS was subject to the requirements of the DCSA.

“The Butler class was presented as one of three options, without any guarantee as to which option would ultimately be provided to J.P. Although the application materials for Butler were not timely submitted for J.P. to enroll in the advanced math class and J.P. had missed too many classes to be able to catch up, IPS enrolled J.P. in a Calculus class through the Indiana Online Academy for the Fall semester of his sophomore year, with in-person support provided by IPS teachers. As a result, J.P. was able to graduate with classes necessary to receive a Core 40 Diploma with Academic Honors. As IPS’s action of providing these specific educational opportunities tailored to J.P.’s abilities are expressly permitted by the statute, the DCSA does not apply,” it wrote.

As to whether an agreement was made about paying for the class, the appellate court agreed with the trial court that no contract existed between IPS and the Poores requiring IPS to provide their son with a class at Butler for free.

The case is Michael and Mary Poore, Individually and on Behalf of J.P. v. Indianapolis Public Schools and its Board of Education,19A-CT-1439.