logo
Indiana House committee hears testimony on bill that would direct referendum funds to charters

Indiana House committee hears testimony on bill that would direct referendum funds to charters

Chicago Tribune06-03-2025
More than 50 Indiana residents spoke on a Senate bill targeting public schools, requiring funds from a school corporation referendum to be shared with local charter schools.
A majority of speakers at the Wednesday House Ways and Means committee meeting spoke against the bill, saying it would lead to less resources for Indianapolis Public Schools, the state's largest school district.
Speakers in defense of the bill said it would allow charter schools to have adequate funding and similar resources to public schools.
Sen. Linda Rogers, R-Granger, authored Senate Bill 518, which would require corporations to share funds with charters within their attendance boundaries as of May 2025 if 100 or more students leave the district for charters. Virtual charters would not qualify in the latest version of the bill.
Urban communities with several charters, including Gary, will be impacted if the bill passes, according to Post-Tribune archives. The bill stipulates that Gary School Community School Corporation would be exempt from revenue sharing until 2028 due to its distressed status.
Rogers testified at Wednesday's hearing, explaining why charter schools need more funding and how the bill would help.
'When it comes to fiscal performance of charters, in addition to an audit by the State Board of Accounts, charter schools are required to have a third-party audit completed every year,' Rogers said. '(The audit) adds a cost to the charter, unlike district public schools, which are only audited by the State Board of Accounts every year and are much less rigorous.'
Multiple Democratic representatives had questions for Rogers about the bill, including concerns about charters closing mid-year or how students are accepted into the schools. Democrats have criticized Senate Bill 518, saying it would cause public schools to cut their budgets further.
Rep. Ed DeLaney, D-Indianapolis, said Senate Bill 518 is not needed because charter schools already receive funding through the state and federal sources. According to Chalkbeat Indiana, charter schools receive an additional $1,400 per student for operational costs to make up for their lack of local property tax revenue.
'I don't know of any other (public) institution in this state … that is told to give money to a private enterprise and is mandated by the General Assembly,' DeLaney said. 'Why not order to give through the YMCA? It's a very worthy cause. … It would be equally unfair and inconsistent with our democratic society.'
Districts would also be required to share with charters a portion of debt service levy, which is used to pay off long term projects.
Keegan Williams, a student at Shortridge High School in Indianapolis, testified on behalf of public schools. Shortridge is one of IPS' multiple high schools.
Williams will graduate this year and plans to go to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. He credits his acceptance to IPS and courses he could take through the district's International Baccalaureate program.
'The programming at Shortridge has given me the tools to make myself competitive as if I went to a private school,' Williams said. 'I would just hate to see a place like Shortridge be the first state public high school to have resources diminished, to be threatened by this bill. It threatens our history, and it threatens the very reason why I'm here.'
Hilari Vargo, an IPS parent, also spoke against the bill, saying that in an effort to help charter schools more, both school types will suffer. She focused on resources that will diminish, including transportation.
'How is (Senate Bill 518) the answer?' Vargo said. 'How is that going to provide transportation? IPS will also not have transportation next year for the students out of district.'
Multiple representatives from IPS, including Superintendent Aleesia Johnson, spoke against Senate Bill 518.
Johnson said that if Senate Bill 518 and Senate Bill 1 — which address property tax reform — are both passed, it could 'cause significant disruption' to the school district. The loss of funding would require the district to close schools, reduce transportation and eliminate jobs.
'The question I continue to wrestle with, and the question that remains unanswered, is 'Then what?'' Johnson said. 'Then what for families who have experienced changes and disruption time and time again? Then what for our most vulnerable students in schools…?'
IPS has multiple charter schools within its district that would also lose funding if Senate Bill 518 is passed, Johnson said, because the schools are part of a public district.
About 30 charter schools partnered with IPS would be penalized through Senate Bill 518, Johnson said.
A similar measure has been in effect in Marion, Lake, Vanderburgh and St. Joseph counties since 2023.
Multiple commenters spoke in favor of Senate Bill 518, including charter school teachers, students, parents and leaders. All explained charter school benefits, including more time focused on students and increased opportunities.
Those in favor of charter schools said the institutions have less available resources than public schools.
Dave Ebersol, a teacher at South Bend Career Academy, which is a tuition-free, public charter school. Ebersol said charter schools are intentionally different from public schools and provide 'real-world learning.'
Charter school families are already making sacrifices, Ebersol said, with students receiving about $3,000 less than those in public schools.
'This inequity is even greater because local tax dollars follow students in traditional school districts, but not when they choose to go to a public charter school,' Ebersol said. 'Instead, those dollars stay with a district that is no longer educating them. Our families are already making sacrifices because they believe in our schools.'
Jean Hitchcock, executive director of Signature School in Evansville, also spoke in support of Senate Bill 518. Signature School connects students with opportunities they might not get at public schools, Hitchcock said, including some who might be the first in their families to attend high school or college.
The Evansville school receives about $2,000 less per student, Hitchcock said, and they have less access to technology than public schools, including laptops.
'Fifty percent of Signature students have access to a classroom laptop, whereas most Indiana schools already have one-to-one laptop initiatives in place,' Hitchcock said. 'We're exploring the possibility of opening a middle school, but we are held back because of concern over adequate funding.'
Rep. Sheila Klinker, D-Lafayette, asked how students receive transportation to and from school, a concern of various representatives in the Ways and Means committee.
Signature School doesn't provide transportation, Hitchcock said, but students can take the Evansville city buses or carpool.
Brandon Brown, CEO of the Mind Trust — which invests in public education and advocates for charter schools — also spoke in support of Senate Bill 518. Within IPS' district, about 60% of students attend charter schools, which include a vast majority of Black, Hispanic and low-income students, Brown said.
'When we talk about ensuring that our marginalized students have access and resources, that's exactly what this bill does,' Brown said. 'We think it'll be transformative for tens of thousands of students across our state. … The majority of students who attend charter schools, those students will make significantly more progress than their peers.'
Brown said the $1,400 per student is appreciated in charter schools, but for IPS it's 'a drop in the bucket.' IPS has had its local tax receipts more than double since 2018, receiving almost $9,000 per student in local property taxes, Brown said.
The Ways and Means committee is expected to vote on Senate Bill 518 at a later date before it advances to the Indiana House floor.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Pence calls for secondary sanctions on Russia
Pence calls for secondary sanctions on Russia

The Hill

time8 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Pence calls for secondary sanctions on Russia

Former Vice President Pence urged the Senate on Thursday to pass a major sanctions bill against Russia, arguing that the hefty tariffs, along with continued military aid to Ukraine, provide the best 'pathway' to reaching peace in Eastern Europe. 'He's fully capable of doing the diplomatic thing and being friendly and shaking hands and at the same time saying, here's the economic consequences that are going to happen, unless you step forward,' Pence said of President Trump during his appearance on NewsNation's show 'The Hill.' 'If we pass those secondary sanctions, Vladimir Putin will understand that we could literally break their economy and by providing continued military support for Ukraine, that combination of efforts, I think, is the best pathway to peace,' the former vice president told host Blake Burman. The sanctions bill, which has been pushed by Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), would impose 500 percent tariffs on countries purchasing Russian oil and gas. The measure has over 85 co-sponsors in the upper chamber, but the Senate left for recess before advancing the bill, deferring to Trump to give the green light. 'We propose in our bill 500 percent. If it's 250 percent, I could live with it. Even if it's 100 percent, possibly. But you ought to impose bone-crushing sanctions that will stop them from fueling Russia's war machine,' Blumenthal said earlier this month. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said on Monday that Trump should be 'commended' for his efforts to end the Russia-Ukraine war and signaled the Senate is 'ready' to provide the president 'any economic leverage needed to keep Russia at the table to negotiate a just and lasting peace in Ukraine.' Trump has pushed to end the three-and-a-half-year war, meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, along with seven European leaders, on Monday at the White House. Since then, Russian officials have expressed doubt about the possibilities of a speedy peace deal with Ukraine, including agreeing on security guarantees for Kyiv and scheduling a bilateral meeting between Putin and Zelensky, for which the president has advocated for some time. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov questioned Zelensky's legitimacy on Thursday and stated the security guarantees under ongoing talks are 'hopeless.' Lavrov claimed that Putin is ready to meet with the Ukrainian president with the 'understanding that all issues that require consideration at the highest level will be well worked out.' Trump said Thursday that 'interesting times [are] ahead' and slammed his predecessor, former President Biden, over his administration's policy of barring Ukraine from using U.S. long-range weapons to strike deep inside Russia. 'It is very hard, if not impossible, to win a war without attacking an invaders country. It's like a great team in sports that has a fantastic defense, but is not allowed to play offense. There is no chance of winning! It is like that with Ukraine and Russia,' the president said on Truth Social. Pence, in the interview with NewsNation, argued that one of the reasons why Putin did not invade Ukraine during Trump's first White House term is that the Trump-Pence administration 'had the credible threat of the use of force.' 'He saw us take action, unleashing our military to take down the ISIS caliphate,' Pence said on Thursday. 'Send cruise missiles into Syria to take down Qasem Soleimani, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard leader.'

Californians' love-hate relationship with high-speed rail
Californians' love-hate relationship with high-speed rail

Politico

time9 minutes ago

  • Politico

Californians' love-hate relationship with high-speed rail

Presented by With help from Camille von Kaenel and Noah Baustin HOPE SPRINGS ETERNAL: California voters aren't confident the state's high-speed rail project will ever be finished, but they're not ready to give up on it either. Nearly two-thirds — 62 percent — of voters say that California should continue bankrolling the planned rail line from the Bay Area to Los Angeles after the Trump administration clawed back $4 billion in federal grants last month, according to an exclusive POLITICO-Citrin Center-Possibility Lab poll. The poll revealed a clear partisan divide among the more than 1,400 registered voters surveyed, as just 21 percent of Democrats said it's time to pull the plug, compared to 45 percent of independents and 62 percent of Republicans. But that doesn't mean liberal Californians believe it's any more likely that they'll be able to ride from Southern California to San Francisco in their lifetime. Just 27 percent of Democrats said there's a high likelihood the project will be completed, roughly matching the 23 percent of their conservative counterparts who believe California officials can finish the first high-speed rail line in North America. That seemingly counterintuitive outcome offers a lesson for Gov. Gavin Newsom and the candidates vying to replace him who've doubled down on their support: It's time to put up or shut up. 'There definitely is this sense that the state can't do big things,' said Andrew Acosta, a veteran California Democratic campaign consultant. 'Californians would like to see it happen, but show me the last project that came in on time or under budget.' That sentiment is reflected in the poll, as 38 percent of Democrats said their support is contingent on the project keeping to its current budget. But, in the short term, President Donald Trump's incessant hammering of a project beset with construction delays and cost overruns could be doing California officials a favor. His Federal Railroad Administration yanked $4 billion in Obama- and Biden-era grants last month, following a barrage of attacks from Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, congressional and state Republicans. 'This project was Severely Overpriced, Overregulated, and NEVER DELIVERED,' Trump wrote on his social media platform Truth Social, the day the federal funding was revoked. 'Not a SINGLE penny in Federal Dollars will go towards this Newscum SCAM ever again.' Jack Citrin, a political science professor at University of California, Berkeley, and partner on the poll, said the partisan divide over whether California should continue the project reflects a broader trend on issues that have federal connections, like electric vehicle policies. 'Any of these questions that smell of Trump, the Democrats are going to be pushed in the opposite direction,' Citrin said. Newsom and high-speed rail backers, including powerful labor unions, have countered the Republican crackdown with a proposal to guarantee $1 billion in funding annually through the state's cap-and-trade program. Democratic voters' continued support for state funding could bolster their argument as negotiations over how to divvy up revenue generated by cap-and-trade auctions heat up with less than a month before the end of the legislative session. Those are signs that even without federal help, high-speed rail isn't going anywhere in the short term. Democratic lawmakers will likely face another reckoning sooner rather than later over a project that was originally slated for completion by 2020 and is now expected to open its initial line connecting Bakersfield to Merced in 2033, with no projected date for final completion. The rail line's price tag is now estimated to cost up to $128 billion, nearly four times its original $33 billion projection. But Citrin said the results show that Democrats remain hopeful about high-speed rail, even if they have doubts. 'I think a lot of this support shows that hope springs eternal,' he said. Did someone forward you this newsletter? Sign up here! PASS 'EM IF YOU'VE GOT 'EM: Kids are back in school, Labor Day plans are locked in, and it's hot enough to cook an egg on the sidewalk in Sacramento. All signs of one undeniable fact: It's almost the end of the session. Since recess ended, redistricting and a slew of major energy packages have dominated the conversation. But there's still some perfectly good legislation to pass outside the center of those dueling storms. At least so says a coalition of renewable energy business groups and advocates. The group — including former state Sen. Fran Pavley, Advanced Energy United and The Climate Center — sent a letter Thursday to Newsom and the leadership of both legislative houses and their appropriations committee making the case for giving some lower-profile energy bills some love. 'These common-sense bills will have a big impact on lowering energy costs, expanding access to clean energy, and strengthening grid reliability,' said Edson Perez, California lead with Advanced Energy United. 'But because they've faced no big controversy and advanced quietly, they risk slipping under the radar in this crowded legislative session.' So what's on the list? THE CLIMATE MONEY: Remember Proposition 4, the $10 billion climate bond voters approved last November as one of the year's big climate wins? The groups that championed it sure do — and now they're angling for their payday. Water, wildfire, conservation and renewable energy groups urged budget leaders in a Thursday letter to detail and pass a spending plan for at least $2.7 billion of the money this year. 'Given the cuts to and uncertainty around federal funding for natural resources, state investments are more important than ever,' wrote the groups, including The Nature Conservancy, American Clean Power-California and the Association of California Water Agencies. In its own letter, ACWA detailed 'shovel-ready' dam safety and recycled water projects that were originally slated to get money from the general fund but were cut in an agreement between Newsom and lawmakers to instead fund them with the bond money. Sen. Ben Allen and Assemblymember Steve Bennett, who chair the budget subcommittees overseeing environmental spending, have said in interviews they're interested in passing a spending plan for the bond money. But negotiations around the pot of money are tangled with negotiations over how to distribute cap-and-trade revenues as part of the program's reauthorization. — CvK SOAK IT UP: One reservoir's loss is another's gain. The California Water Commission voted unanimously this week to redirect $218.9 million in Prop 1 bond money it had allocated to the Los Vaqueros Reservoir expansion, which stalled last year over disagreement over who should pay for what, to the Sites Reservoir project, bringing the total state contribution to $1 billion for the proposal to store enough American River water to supply 3 million households per year. The money comes at a good time for Sites, the state's biggest new reservoir in decades, because a brand new cost estimate hiked its ten-year-old price tag of $4.5 billion up to $6.8 billion — but it's not enough. Filling in the gap will be the water agencies who've signed up to get some of the water but have yet to finalize their contribution — most notably the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, which has preliminarily signed up for a 22 percent share. The federal government, coming in at 9 percent right now, has also expressed interest in getting more of the water. If the State Water Resources Control Board signs off on its water permit as expected this year and, crucially, the cost-share is figured out, construction could start as soon as next year — making Sites a major test of California's ability to build large-scale water infrastructure in a changing climate. — CvK NUCLEAR BY THE BAY: Bay Area startups and tech veterans appear to be the earliest winners in the Trump administration's push to loosen nuclear regulations and speed up the development of small reactors. Eight of 10 companies chosen by the Department of Energy last week to compete for safety design approvals were founded in the San Francisco Bay Area or have former tech industry leaders in executive positions, as Francisco 'A.J.' Camacho reports for POLITICO's E&E News. That program aims to quickly advance nuclear technology and have at least three new pilot plants operating by July 4, 2026. The development comes after Trump signed a May executive order that allows safety designs for new reactors already tested and certified either by DOE or the Defense Department to avoid scrutiny from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Industry watchers say that change benefits startups, which are less eager to work with the NRC than are established nuclear developers like Westinghouse Nuclear and GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy. — AN RAISE A GLASS: How do you wrap up a day of lobbying legislators, many of whom are on the brink of rolling back major environmental regulations? You drink on it. The EnviroVoters Ed Fund (the group's 501(c)3 arm) hosted the Green CA Reception on Wednesday evening at Cafeteria 15L. POLITICO spotted Assemblymember Alex Lee in the crowd, plus a slew of environmental advocates including: Resource Renewal Institute Director of Advocacy and Engagement Scott Webb, Environmental Defense Center Chief Counsel Linda Krop, BlueGreen Alliance Senior California Policy Organizer Franki Gracey, Fearless Advocacy Inc. President Jennifer Fearing and, of course, California Environmental Voters Executive Director Mike Young. — NB SETTING THE AGENDA: On Wednesday, Aug. 27, POLITICO is hosting its inaugural California policy summit: The California Agenda. We're thrilled to announce our panel: 'California's Energy Policy at a Crossroads,' featuring state Senate energy and environment policy adviser Kip Lipper, Western States Petroleum Association CEO Catherine Reheis-Boyd, Newsom senior climate adviser Lauren Sanchez and environmental justice consultant Katie Valenzuela — and moderated by our editor Debra Kahn. The live event is currently at capacity, but will be streamed. Advance registration is required — request an online invite here. — Sammy Roth at the Los Angeles Times pins California's climate backsliding on Newsom. — Southern California is facing a triple threat of extreme heat, wildfire risk and thunderstorms. — A leading expert on energy affordability has a new book on the implications of solar getting cheaper.

U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett says he will not seek reelection if new congressional map is approved
U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett says he will not seek reelection if new congressional map is approved

Yahoo

time18 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett says he will not seek reelection if new congressional map is approved

AUSTIN (Nexstar) — Democratic U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett announced he would end his reelection campaign if a new controversial congressional map is approved by the courts. Doggett currently serves a blue district in Austin. 'If the courts give Trump a victory in his scheme to maintain control of a compliant House, I will not seek reelection in the reconfigured CD37, even though it contains over 2/3rd of my current constituents,' Doggett said in a news release Thursday evening. This announcement comes just weeks after the longest-serving representative in the state's delegation said he would run for another term in Congressional District 37. A new congressional map approved by the Texas House of Representatives on Wednesday would give Republicans an advantage to pick up an additional five seats in Congress in the 2026 midterm elections. The rare mid-decade redistricting push is in response to President Donald Trump wanting to shore up Republican control in the U.S. House ahead of the midterm elections in his second term. State Rep. Todd Hunter, R – Corpus Christi, submitted the proposed map and told his colleagues in open meetings that the map was drawn with political performance in mind. They targeted five blue districts in Texas to give Republicans an advantage. One of the districts targeted was CD 35, which is currently held by U.S. Rep. Greg Casar. The current configuration of CD 35 captures parts of east Austin and San Antonio. Under Hunter's proposal, CD 35 was shifted to cover only east San Antonio. The new voting lines were drawn to favor Republican candidates. In the 2024 election, voters in the proposed CD 35 voted for Donald Trump by a 10-point margin. If the map is ultimately approved, it gives Casar a tough decision. He can either run in his current district that now leans more Republican, or challenge his Democratic colleague in Austin. Doggett and Casar stood united against the gerrymandering effort on Aug. 1, but later in the month a 'save the date' email acquired by Punchbowl News reporter Ally Mutnick showed Doggett saw it best that Casar continue to run for reelection in CD 35 because it was more Hispanic. 'Of course I plan to run for reelection in Austin,' Casar said in a statement at the time. 'But the most important thing right now isn't any one person's political career. The most important thing is fighting Trump's gerrymandering, which is what I'm focused on.' But Doggett's latest announcement shows he would concede the seat to Casar if the map prevails in the courts, which state Democrats have already said they would challenge once it is fully approved. 'I had hoped that my commitment to reelection under any circumstances would encourage Congressman Casar to not surrender his winnable district to Trump,' Doggett's statement reads. 'While his apparent decision is most unfortunate, I prefer to devote the coming months to fighting Trump tyranny and serving Austin rather than waging a struggle with fellow Democrats. If Trump extreme gerrymandering prevails, I wish Congressman Casar the best.' Casar posted kind words for Doggett on social media, describing him as 'an Austin institution.' 'I've learned so much from him. I'm grateful to him. The fight for democracy continues,' Casar wrote. Doggett did leave the door open for another congressional run if the federal courts strike down the proposed map. 'If this racially gerrymandered Trump map is rejected, as it should be, I will continue seeking reelection in Congressional District 37 to represent my neighbors in the only town I have ever called home,' the statement read. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store