MCCSC to slow hiring, introduce cost-cutting measures as part of new financial plan
The reduction in staff is just one of several strategies MCCSC will ultimately employ to reduce costs as part of a two-year, five-phase strategic financial plan. The plan was announced by MCCSC Superintendent Markay Winston during February's school board meeting.
Winston said the corporation will 'carefully reassess' whether to backfill the positions of people who resign or retire this spring. MCCSC said approximately 80-100 teachers and 250-300 support staff retire or resign each year.
The strategic plan comes in direct response to a November recommendation by a demographic consultant for MCCSC to consider closing or consolidating schools in the face of local and statewide population decreases. While Winston and board members did not discuss closing schools during the meeting, Winston said multiple approaches, including 'resource optimization' will be used to achieve financial stability as the gap between MCCSC's costs and revenues widens.
'There are not enough one-time fixes to address our structural imbalance,' Winston said.
Winston said slowing population growth and enrollment rates have cost MCCSC approximately $17.2 million in 'lost revenue' since 2020, a trend that's expected to continue in the years and decades to come. MCCSC's enrollment has decreased by 835 students, or 7.66%, since 2020.
The Indiana Business Research Center projects Monroe County's school-age population (ages 5 to 19) will decrease by 1,053 children, or over 4%, in the next decade. Across the state, all counties outside the Indianapolis metro area are expected to see population decreases in the next three decades.
Winston said the rate at which MCCSC has been hiring and adding new positions in recent years is 'unsustainable," especially after MCCSC increased teacher and support staff wages with the 2022 referendum.
'While there is no one who would dispute the fact that our teachers are deserving of salary increases, the reality is that our current staffing levels do not meet the current student enrollment levels,' Winston said.
At the same time, families in the district have enrolled their children in more charter and private schools since 2020. From the 2021-22 to 2024-25 school years, the number of students in MCCSC's attendance zone who started attending outside schools increased from 1,158 to 1,637.
In the 2024-25 school year, 38% of those inside the attendance zone who didn't attend MCCSC schools went to charter schools, while 36% attended private schools.
These enrollment changes come at a time when the Indiana Legislature is weighing two bills that could further impact MCCSC's finances. Senate Bill 518 would require public schools to share local property tax revenue with charter schools, while Senate Bill 1, a tax relief bill, could limit how much school corporations are able to collect in property taxes through referendums.
In November, MCCSC's demographics consultant said it would be unwise for the corporation to redistrict students without strongly considering closing some schools first. His report included 14 scenarios for potential redistricting, five of which included closing or consolidating Childs Elementary.
Winston didn't offer many concrete actions beyond the plan to strategically reevaluate staff vacancies that open up this spring. A webpage for the strategic plan references 'establishing a revised financial management plan that optimizes revenue generation, resource optimization, reserve building, operational efficiency, and strategic staffing' that will be implemented, in phases, over two years.
Tim Dowling, director of early learning and enrollment, said MCCSC will create a 'redistricting study commission' that will meet for the first time in March. Dowling said information will go out in the next week about who can participate and how community members can get involved.
Winston said she and her team will provide quarterly updates on the strategic plan during board meetings. Winston, Dowling and MCCSC communications director Sarah DeWeese did not immediately respond to questions about whether the strategic plan would include discussions of closing or consolidating schools.
More information about the strategic financial plan, including a PDF and video recording of Winston's presentation, is available online at www.mccsc.edu/strategy.
Reach Brian Rosenzweig at brian@heraldt.com. Follow him on Twitter/X at @brianwritesnews.
This article originally appeared on The Herald-Times: MCCSC financial plan calls for smaller staff cost-cutting
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
3 days ago
- Boston Globe
Big law firms withdraw from challenging Trump
But Winston declined to represent the FBI agents, three people with knowledge of the matter said. It was one of several cases Winston turned down in quick succession, they added, that would have pitted the firm against an openly retributive president. Advertisement Some of the country's largest law firms have declined to represent clients challenging the Trump administration, more than a dozen attorneys and nonprofit leaders told ProPublica, while others have sought to avoid any clients that Trump might perceive as his enemies. That includes both clients willing to pay the firms' steep rates, and those who receive free representation. Big Law firms are also refusing to take on legal work involving environmental protections, LGBTQ+ rights and police accountability or to represent elected Democrats and federal workers purged in Trump's war on the 'deep state.' Advocacy groups say this is beginning to hamper their efforts to challenge the Trump administration. Advertisement Their fears intensified after Trump signed a battery of executive orders aimed at punishing top firms over old associations with his adversaries. But as the Winston episode shows, Big Law began to back away from some clients almost the minute he returned to power. The country's top firms remain deeply wary, even though the president has lost all four initial court challenges to those executive orders. 'The President's Policy is working as designed,' said a lawsuit the American Bar Association filed against the administration in June. 'Even as federal judges have ruled over and over that the Law Firm Orders are plainly unconstitutional, law firms that once proudly contributed thousands of hours of pro bono work to a host of causes — including causes championed by the ABA — have withdrawn from such work because it is disfavored by the Administration.' The bar association itself has struggled to find representation, Advertisement The ABA and Susman Godfrey, which is representing the association in its lawsuit against the administration, declined to comment. Winston, Sidley and the White House did not respond to questions sent in writing. Trump's grievances with Big Law stem partly from its role in blocking his first-term agenda. In his executive order targeting Jenner & Block, a firm with close ties to the Democratic Party that fought Trump on transgender rights and immigration, he assailed the firm for allegedly 'abus[ing] its pro bono practice to engage in activities that undermine justice.' Another firm, WilmerHale, was where former Special Counsel Robert Mueller worked before and after leading the Russian interference investigation. The executive orders barred attorneys working for the firms from entering federal buildings where they represent clients, terminated the firms' government contracts, revoked partners' security clearances and required government contractors to disclose if they work with the targeted firms. Perkins Coie, one of Trump's first targets, began to lose business 'within hours,' 'I just think that the law firms have to behave themselves,' Trump said at a press conference in late March. Nine corporate law firms behaved themselves in the form of reaching public settlements with Trump. The deals require them to provide $940 million in total of pro bono support for Trump-approved causes. There has been no public indication of the White House calling on them to perform specific work, and Trump has not released any new executive orders against firms since April. Yet organizations that challenge the government are still feeling the chill. Advertisement 'There's been a real, noticeable shift,' said Lauren Bonds, the executive director of the National Police Accountability Project, a national nonprofit that brings lawsuits over alleged police abuse and was a frequent pro bono client of Big Law. In November, as soon as Trump won reelection, a top firm that was helping NPAP develop a lawsuit against a city's police force abruptly stopped attending all planning calls, Bonds said. Later, the firm became one of the nine that struck a deal with Trump, after which the firm half-heartedly told Bonds, she said, that it would reconsider the case in the future. Bonds declined to identify the firm. Activist nonprofits have long relied on free representation because they typically lack the resources to mount major lawsuits on their own. Civil rights cases in particular are complex undertakings usually lasting years. Many call for hundreds of hours spent deposing witnesses and performing research, as well as upfront costs of tens of thousands of dollars. Big Law, with its deep ranks of attorneys and paying clients to subsidize their volunteer work, is in a unique position to help. In exchange, the work burnishes the firm's reputation and serves as a draw for idealistic young associates. 'I know that [cases] have been shot down that in Trump Administration 1, firms would crawl over each other to get our name at the top of the case so that we could get the New York Times headline,' said a Big Law partner whose firm has not been one of Trump's targets. 'That's the environment. What's become radioactive has grown from a very small number of things to anything this administration and Trump might notice and get angry about.' Advertisement Jill Collen Jefferson, the president and founder of Julian, a small nonprofit that investigates civil rights violations, has felt the chill too. Three years ago, Julian partnered with the elite law firm Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, the country's No. 1 corporate firm most years by per-partner revenue, to bring lawsuits against the town of Lexington, Mississippi, and its police force for racial discrimination. 'It wasn't hard at all to get help,' she recalled. George Floyd's death had raised public support for police accountability, and the details Since January, when Trump began Jefferson now doubts Julian's ability to bring a police abuse lawsuit it had planned to file before the statute of limitations expires this month. Advertisement 'It's been a nightmare,' she said. 'People don't want to stand up, and because of that, people are suffering.' NPAP ultimately joined forces with another civil rights organization to salvage the case after its co-counsel disappeared from planning calls last November. But the suit will be 'less robust' without the firepower of a major law firm, Bonds said. And NPAP's capacity to file future suits is in question. Civil rights attorneys in NPAP's network have developed novel legal theories for challenging arrests by Immigration and Customs Enforcement under state constitutions, but they lack enough outside partnerships. 'There are cases that aren't being brought at a time when civil rights abuses are maybe at the highest they've been in modern times,' Bonds said. Big Law was often in the vanguard of fighting Trump's first administration. After he signed the 2017 travel ban affecting several predominantly Muslim countries, partners from Now, Davis Polk is among the many firms that are avoiding pro bono immigration cases, Winston & Strawn's annual pro bono reports show how its focus — or at least, its language — has changed. The firm's 2023 Eisen and Zaid, the lawyers representing the FBI agents, themselves became the target of Zaid sued to restore his security clearance in May, in a case that is ongoing. His lawyer, Abbe Lowell, is a high-profile defense attorney who left Winston this spring in order to form his own firm. Lowell said his goal is to represent those 'unlawfully and inappropriately targeted.' New York Attorney General Letitia James, who won a fraud judgment against Trump and is now a target of his DOJ, was one of his first clients. 'The Administration's attempt at retribution against Mark for doing his job — representing whistleblowers without regard to politics — is as illegal as its similar efforts against law firms that have been enjoined in every case,' Lowell wrote in an email to ProPublica. Good-government groups and small and mid-sized law firms have stepped into the breach, helping to file hundreds of lawsuits against the Trump administration. And the four firms that sued Trump over his executive orders are devoting thousands of pro bono hours to others challenging the administration. Perkins Coie, for example, has replaced Kirkland as Lambda Legal's partner in challenging Trump's transgender military ban. But until they build up the capacity to fully replace Big Law, Bonds said, some of the administration's legally dubious actions will go unchallenged. 'There's a financial resources piece that we're really missing when we can't engage a firm,' Bonds said. 'Even if there's a big case and we feel really confident about it, we'll just have to pass on it.'
Indianapolis Star
5 days ago
- Indianapolis Star
'Scalpel,' not an 'ax': Why many Indianapolis departments could face budget cuts in 2026
Indianapolis officials are asking department heads — except those who lead public safety agencies — to reduce their annual budgets by about 4% heading into 2026 as the city adjusts to higher labor costs, lower property tax revenue forecasts due to Senate Bill 1 and other state policy changes. Without those proposed cuts, city leaders would be staring down a roughly $43 million budget deficit caused in part by property tax reforms passed by state lawmakers this spring, City Controller Abby Hanson told IndyStar in a recent interview. After Indianapolis Mayor Joe Hogsett made clear that he wanted to present the city's 10th straight balanced budget with no tax increases, Hanson is pushing most departments to cut 4% of their budgets that "we could live without." Officials are also asking the local police, sheriff's and fire departments to limit their budget growth to 2%. "Frankly, the amount of property taxes that I was expecting us to have in 2026, that didn't come to fruition," Hanson said in an exclusive Aug. 6 interview with IndyStar, noting that property taxes accounted for about a third of city revenues in 2025. "That's not the amount of growth that we ended up having." Experts have warned that SB 1, which is forecast to reduce property tax growth by $1.4 billion statewide from 2026 to 2028, would force local governments to tighten their belts and could force hard decisions about whether to cut public services in the coming years. Starting next year, cities will start collecting less money as homeowners earn tax credits that lower their property tax bills by up to $300. A state analysis shows that under the new law, the Indianapolis city-county and Marion County governments will miss out on about $11 million in expected property tax revenue growth in 2026. But Hanson said the actual loss is nearly $18 million after factoring in separate taxing districts that are split up in the analysis, including the police, fire and sanitation. SB 1 was a component of the revenue shortfall, but not the only factor. New multi-year labor contracts that the city signed with public sector unions at the end of 2024, including the Fraternal Order of Police and the Indianapolis Professional Firefighters Union, have significantly increased its expenses. The four-year contract with the FOP includes annual pay raises for officers across the board and boosted the starting salary for an Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department officer to nearly $75,000 in 2025, according to the contract. A patrol officer with three years of service is set to earn nearly $88,000 in 2026. Hanson also said a state change that increased the pension rates paid to firefighters and police officers will cost the city more money. In 2025 the city spent nearly $1 billion, or 60%, of its $1.65 billion budget on public safety and criminal justice services including the Indianapolis police and fire departments, the Marion County sheriff's and prosecutor's offices, and the Marion County courts. Where exactly the 4% reductions show up in city services will become clearer during months of budget negotiations that formally begin at the Aug. 11 City-County Council meeting. Presentations by Hogsett and Hanson that night will kick off weeks of hearings at which each department presents its budget to council committees. Hogsett's Chief of Staff Dan Parker told IndyStar that despite the cuts, no "significant" city programs will disappear next year and new investments will still be announced. The growth of the overall budget is expected to be in line with previous years, too, although city officials would not cite an exact amount. The $1.65 billion 2025 budget was about 6% higher than the 2024 budget. "This wasn't an ax being taken to the budget," Parker said. "It was really more of a scalpel because we empowered the agencies to look at their budgets." The city will also set up a new fund for the Department of Public Works that draws mainly on organic growth in local income tax revenues, with the goal of raising $50 million in new money to spend on roads by 2027, Parker said. Starting that year, the state will offer up to $50 million a year in matching grants to help Indianapolis repair its battered roads. Parker said the new state program will make amends for a road-funding formula that disregards lane and traffic counts, sending the same amount of money to a two-lane road in a rural county and a six-lane road in Indianapolis. If the city earns the full matching grant, Indy would spend $100 million more each year on roads. The city's 2025 budget for roads, bridges and greenways was about $200 million. "The mayor's position was that Marion County residents were overpaying into a state system where they weren't getting their fair share," Parker said. "Well, with this bill we're now eligible to get our fair share, and so we want to make sure this budget lays the foundation to be able to get that $50 million and put even more dollars out into road construction."
The Hill
6 days ago
- The Hill
Federal court upholds Oklahoma law banning gender-affirming care for minors
A federal appeals court upheld an Oklahoma law banning gender-affirming care for minors Wednesday in a ruling hinging on a June Supreme Court decision to uphold a similar law in Tennessee. Oklahoma's Senate Bill 613, passed by the state's Republican-controlled Legislature and signed into law by Gov. Kevin Stitt (R) in 2023, makes it a felony for health care workers to provide treatments including puberty-blocking drugs and hormones to affirm a minor's 'perception of his or her gender or biological sex, if that perception is inconsistent with the minor's biological sex.' Five families of transgender children and an Oklahoma City physician specializing in adolescent medicine challenged the state's ban, arguing it violated their constitutional rights. The plaintiffs, represented by Lambda Legal, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the ACLU of Oklahoma, claimed state lawmakers adopted S.B. 613 with discriminatory intent, citing a 2022 law that froze pandemic relief funding for OU Health, one of the state's largest hospital systems, unless Oklahoma Children's Hospital agreed to suspend gender-affirming care for minors. A federal judge in Tulsa declined to stop S.B. 613 from taking effect in 2023, writing in an order that transition-related care for young people is 'an area in which medical and policy debate is unfolding,' and the state 'can rationally take the side of caution before permitting irreversible medical treatments of its children.' An appeal before the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was abated pending the Supreme Court's ruling in U.S. v. Skrmetti. In that case, the justices ruled 6-3 along ideological lines that Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care does not amount to sex discrimination, which would have triggered a higher level of constitutional scrutiny. The court's majority opinion, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, agrees with arguments made by Tennessee officials that the law distinguishes based on a treatment's medical purpose, not sex, and the court should defer to the Legislature's judgment about regulating medicine for children. Relying on the high court's decision, a three-judge panel for the 10th Circuit ruled unanimously on Wednesday that Oklahoma's law is constitutional. Tennessee's Senate Bill 1 and Oklahoma's Senate Bill 613 'are functionally indistinguishable,' Circuit Judge Joel M. Carson, appointed during President Trump's first term, wrote in Wednesday's order. 'Here, like in Skrmetti, both groups include transgender minors, so there exists a 'lack of identity' between transgender status and the medical diagnosis excluded under SB 613. And like Tennessee's SB1, under SB 613, a minor's ability to receive medical treatment under SB 613 does not turn on the minor's transgender status—it turns on the minor's medical diagnosis,' Carson wrote for himself and Circuit Judges Harris L. Hartz, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, and Gregory A. Phillips, appointed by former President Obama. The order, citing Skrmetti, states Oklahoma's law neither violates the Constitution nor was intended to discriminate against transgender youth. 'We recognize the importance of this issue to all involved. But this remains a novel issue with disagreement on how to assure children's health and welfare. We will not usurp the legislature's judgment when it engages in 'earnest and profound debate about the morality, legality, and practicality' of gender transition procedures for minors,' Carson wrote. 'While we respect that Plaintiffs disagree with the legislature's assessment of such procedures' risks, that alone does not invalidate a democratically enacted law on rational-basis grounds.' Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond (R) celebrated the court's ruling Thursday in a post on the social platform X. 'For years, radical left activists pushed the lie of 'gender transition' procedures for minors. The truth is much simpler: there is no such thing,' he wrote. Attorneys for the plaintiffs called Wednesday's decision 'devastating' in a joint statement. 'Oklahoma's ban is openly discriminatory and provably harmful to the transgender youth of this state, putting political dogma above parents, their children, and their family doctors,' the statement said. 'While we and our clients consider our next steps, we want all transgender people and their families across Oklahoma to know we will never stop fighting for the future they deserve and their freedom to be themselves.'
