Indiana bill to shift more dollars from traditional publics to charter schools earns Senate approval
Sen. Linda Rogers, R-LaGrange, answers questions about her charter school funding bill on Thursday, Feb. 20, 2025. (Casey Smith/Indiana Capital Chronicle)
A bill to expand property tax revenue for charter schools cleared a key legislative hurdle Thursday despite fierce pushback from both sides of the aisle and hours of debate on the Senate floor.
Within Senate Bill 518 are provisions to require all Indiana public school districts to share property tax dollars with charter schools in their attendance boundaries if 100 or more students leave the traditional district for brick-and-mortar charters. Districts under that threshold would not have to fund-share. Virtual charters also would not qualify under the latest draft of the bill.
Affected school districts would additionally have to share with charters a portion of property taxes used to pay off debt for long-term projects — known as debt service levy. The amounts shared would be based on the number of students attending the charter school.
'We talk about school choice, and we talk about kids. But we need to also think about the parents that are choosing to send their child to a different school — to a charter school,' said Sen. Linda Rogers, R-Granger, just before her bill advanced 28-21 to the House. 'Those tax dollars, for years, have not followed their children. Today, we need to make that change.'
The legislation was scaled back Wednesday to slow down the timeline for revenue sharing. Rogers said the amendment 'concessions' were largely prompted by her Senate Republican caucus colleagues. Twelve GOP senators ultimately voted against the bill.
'It's a contentious issue. … There are some members of ours that had concerns about it. I wasn't surprised that it was going to be a close issue,' said Republican Senate Pro Tem Rodric Bray. He cited specific concerns about the combined impact of the charter school bill alongside Senate Bill 1, the state's pending property tax reform.
'The combination of Senate Bills 1 and 518 make it, maybe, a little bit more difficult to really see with 20/20 vision the impact that's going to have on our local government, but in particular on our schools,' he continued. 'We just have to make sure that what we do there is good policy. But that does bring some trepidation to some of the members, I think.'
The bill prompted widespread pushback from Democrats and advocates for traditional public schools, who argued that it will drain critical funds from already cash-strapped districts. They worried, too, that such policy will force more school closures, especially within Indianapolis Public Schools.
'The clear losers here are the students and the parents who have chosen to send their students to traditional public schools. We hear people talk about school choice, but it robs tax dollars from the parents of 90% of our future students who choose public schools. Where is the respect for their choice?' asked Senate Minority Leader Shelli Yoder, D-Bloomington. 'This bill takes away that local choice. It overrides the rule of voters, the will of voters.'
Democrats offered 18 amendments to the bill on Wednesday, all of which failed. Those included proposals to reduce revenue sharing requirements, and to pause the bill altogether to allow for further study on impacts.
'The bottom line here today is that we've got a false argument to suggest that taxpayers benefit from money following individual children when we're talking about property taxes. Property taxes are meant to fund local systems, to strengthen entire communities,' said Sen. Andrea Hunley, D-Indianapolis. 'There's no harm in us taking a step back and evaluating the entire landscape of our schools and how we fund them before we start destabilizing them.'
Data compiled by the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools shows that 52,399 Hoosier students attended charter schools during the 2023-24 academic year — up from 46,796 in 2019-20.
A state law adopted in 2023 already requires school districts in Marion, Lake, St. Joseph and Vanderburgh counties — which have high shares of charter attendance — to share a portion of property taxes used for operations with charters located in the same county.
Rogers' bill seeks to extend that requirement statewide. Rogers said there are 36 Hoosier school districts that would meet the 100 or more student requirement.
The phase-in period now included in the bill varies, depending on the number of students attending charter schools within each school district.
Districts with fewer than 500 students attending charter schools would have three years to phase in revenue sharing. Districts with between 500 and 5,000 charter school students must complete the transition within four years, and those with 5,000 or more charter students would have five years.
Rogers said the slower approach will give districts more time to assess budget impacts, including from possible property tax reforms in Senate Bill 1. The current version of that measure is projected to cost school districts more than $370 million in property tax revenue across three years.
'This provides school corporations plenty of time to make any needed budget adjustments,' Rogers said. 'We'll continue to see what the impact is of Senate Bill 1. Specifically, that's why I moved (bill provisions) to 2028, because we don't know, in essence, what we're doing with that.'
The bill gradually increases the amount of school district operating and debt service revenues that are subject to sharing, from 33% in 2026, to 66% in 2027, and the full amount in 2028. As a distressed political unit, Gary Community School Corporation would be exempt from any tax sharing 2028.
An updated legislative fiscal analysis estimates that Rogers' bill will redirect $18.6 million to charter schools over three years. That's a drop from the $150 million that was expected to be redistributed over the same period under an earlier version of the legislation.
Charter schools would additionally have increased access to funds collected by school districts through voter referendums; any school district that adopts a property tax levy for a controlled project after May 10 — such as for new building construction or a school safety referendum — must allocate a portion of the revenue to nearby brick-and-mortar charters.
The state currently gives charter schools an extra $1,400 per pupil to compensate for their lack of property taxes. But under the new funding plan, grant amounts would decrease — or be eliminated altogether — for charters netting property tax dollars. Grants would only kick in if charters receive less than $1,400 from property taxes.
By further shifting the funding burden onto local property taxpayers, the state is estimated to save roughly $19 million.
Rogers did not close the door on future legislative 'adjustments,' however, if the new funding model causes school districts to struggle.
Unlike traditional public school districts, which receive local property tax revenue, charter schools have primarily relied on state funding. Even so, charters continue to take in more state tuition support dollars on a per-student basis than their traditional counterparts, according to legislative fiscal analysts.
Charter school critics have long argued that such schools are not obligated to serve every student in a given community — unlike those in traditional public school districts. That's because capacity limits student enrollment. If a charter has more applicants than spots, a lottery is used.
The public charters also have private boards and are therefore not accountable to voters, opponents say. That could change slightly; Rogers' bill includes a provision to allow traditional public school districts to appoint a member to a charter school's board.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Newsweek
37 minutes ago
- Newsweek
2024 Election Results Under Scrutiny as Lawsuit Advances
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A legal case questioning the accuracy of the 2024 election is moving forward. The lawsuit, brought by SMART Legislation, the action arm of SMART Elections, a nonpartisan watchdog group, filed the lawsuit over voting discrepancies in Rockland County, New York. Judge Rachel Tanguay of the New York Supreme Court ruled in open court in May that the allegations were serious enough for discovery to proceed. Newsweek has contacted SMART Elections for comment via email. People cast their ballots on the last day of early voting for the general election in Michigan at the Livingston Educational Service Agency in Howell on November 3, 2024. People cast their ballots on the last day of early voting for the general election in Michigan at the Livingston Educational Service Agency in Howell on November 3, 2024. Jeff Kowalsky/AFP via Getty Images Why It Matters The lawsuit could renew debate about the 2024 election, though it won't change the outcome since Congress has certified the results declaring President Donald Trump the winner. It comes amid unconfirmed reports that voting machines were secretly altered before ballots were cast in November's election. The federally accredited testing lab, Pro V&V, that signed off on "significant" changes to ES&S voting machines—which are used in over 40 percent of U.S. counties—"vanished from public view" after the election, according to the Dissent in Bloom Substack. What To Know According to the complaint, more voters have sworn in legal affidavits that they voted for independent U.S. Senate candidate Diane Sare than the Rockland County Board of Elections counted and certified, contradicting those results. The complaint also cited numerous statistical anomalies in the presidential election results. They include multiple districts where hundreds of voters chose the Democratic candidate Kirsten Gillibrand for Senate, but none voted for former Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic candidate for president. Max Bonamente, a professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the author of the Statistics and Analysis of Scientific Data, said in a paper that the 2024 presidential election results were statistically highly unlikely in four of the five towns in Rockland County when compared with 2020 results. What People Are Saying Lulu Friesdat, the founder and executive director of SMART Legislation, said in a statement: "There is clear evidence that the Senate results are incorrect, and there are statistical indications that the presidential results are highly unlikely. "If the results are incorrect, it is a violation of the constitutional rights of each person who voted in the 2024 Rockland County general election. The best way to determine if the results are correct is to examine the paper ballots in a full public, transparent hand recount of all presidential and Senate ballots in Rockland County. We believe it's vitally important, especially in the current environment, to be absolutely confident about the results of the election." Max Bonamente said in a paper on the voting data from Rockland County: "These data would require extreme sociological or political causes for their explanation, and would benefit from further assurances as to their fidelity." Costas Panagopoulos, a professor of political science at Northeastern University, told Newsweek: "Statistical irregularities in elections should always be investigated, but the sources of such inconsistencies, which can include error or miscalculation, are not always nefarious. Still, scrutinizing election results can strengthen confidence in elections. Mistakes can happen. "In this case, the drop-off inconsistencies could reflect the idiosyncratic nature of the 2024 presidential election cycle. Alone, statistical comparisons to previous cycles cannot provide definitive proof of wrongdoing. "In any case, it does not appear that any of these inconsistencies would be sufficient to change the outcomes of any of the elections in question in New York state. That does not mean they should not be scrutinized, and any errors, if verified, should be corrected for the historical record. But there is not necessarily any need to invalidate any of these elections in these jurisdictions." What's Next The lawsuit is seeking a full, hand recount of ballots cast in the presidential and U.S. Senate races in Rockland County. A hearing has been scheduled for September 22.

USA Today
42 minutes ago
- USA Today
Congress introduces bill addressing national guidelines for college sports
Congress introduces bill addressing national guidelines for college sports With the settlement of three athlete-compensation antitrust cases against the NCAA and the Power Five conferences having received final approval from a federal district judge on June 6, members of the U.S. House of Representatives have moved into action with new legislative proposals regarding national rules for college sports. On Wednesday, June 10, Reps. Lisa McClain, R-Mich., and Janelle Bynum, D-Ore., introduced a bill that comes shortly after Reps. Gus Bilirakis, R-Fla., and Brett Guthrie, R-Ky., circulated a discussion draft of a bill that would largely put into federal law the terms and new rules-making structure of the settlement. The discussion draft is set to be the centerpiece of a hearing June 11 by a subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Bilirakis, who has been involved in previous college-sports bill efforts, chairs the subcommittee. Guthrie chairs the full committee. The bill – in addition to being a bi-partisan presentation – continues recent work related to college sports from McClain, who is the current House Republican Conference chair. That makes her the GOP's No. 4-ranking member in the House. In April, McClain introduced a bill that would prevent college athletes from being employees of their schools, conferences or an athletic association. The discussion draft – as posted on Congress' general resource site, - includes language that specifically would allow the NCAA, and potentially the new Collegiate Sports Commission, to make rules in areas that have come into legal dispute in recent years and in areas that the NCAA wants to shield from legal dispute. The discussion draft, first reported on by The Washington Post, also includes language that would require most Division I schools to provide a series of benefits for athletes that are currently called for under NCAA and some conferences' rules but do not have the force of federal law. In addition, the discussion draft includes a 'placeholder' section for language that likely would be connected to providing antitrust or other legal protection for various provisions. According the discussion draft, an 'interstate collegiate athletic association' would be able to 'establish and enforce rules relating to … the manner in which … student athletes may be recruited' to play sports; 'the transfer of a student athlete between institutions'; and 'the number of seasons or length of time for which a student athlete is eligible to compete, academic standards, and code of conduct'. The NCAA's rules regarding when recruits can be offered money in exchange for the use of their name, image and likeness; athletes' ability to freely transfer; and the number of seasons in which they are eligible to compete all of have been – or currently are being – addressed in federal and state courts across the country. That has raised concerns for NCAA officials about the future of rules such as those concerning academic eligibility requirements The discussion draft also includes language that would require most Division I schools to provide a series of benefits for athletes that are currently called for under NCAA and some conferences' rules but do not have the force of law. These include medical coverage for athletically related injuries for at least two years after the conclusion of an athlete's career; guaranteed financial aid that would allow an athlete to complete an undergraduate degree; and 'an administrative structure that provides independent medical care and affirms the unchallengeable autonomous authority of primary athletics health care providers (team physicians and athletic trainers) to determine medical management and return-to-play decisions related to student athletes.'


CNBC
43 minutes ago
- CNBC
Trump's 'big beautiful' spending bill could make it harder to claim this low-income tax credit
As Senate Republicans debate President Donald Trump's "big beautiful bill", a lesser-known provision from the House-approved package could make it harder to claim a low-income tax credit. If enacted as written, the House measure in the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" would require precertification of each qualifying child for filers claiming the so-called earned income tax credit, or EITC, starting in 2028. Under current law, taxpayers claim the EITC on their tax return — including Schedule EIC for qualifying children. The provision aims to "avoid duplicative and other erroneous claims," according to the bill's text. But policy experts say the new rules would burden eligible filers, who may forgo the EITC as a result. The measure could also delay tax refunds for those filers, particularly amid IRS cutbacks, experts say. More from Personal Finance:Job market is 'trash' right now, career coach says — here's whyWhat a 'revenge tax' in Trump's spending bill could mean for investorsWhat Trump's plan to slash Pell Grant to lowest level in a decade means for you "You're going to flood the IRS with all these [EITC] documents," said Janet Holtzblatt, a senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. "It's just not clear how they're going to process all this information." Holtzblatt, who has pushed to simplify the EITC for decades, wrote a critique of the proposed precertification last week. "This is not a new idea, but was previously considered, studied and rejected for very good reasons," Greg Leiserson, a senior fellow at the Tax Law Center at New York University Law, wrote about the proposal in late May. Studies during the George W. Bush administration found an EITC precertification process reduced EITC claims for eligible filers, Leiserson wrote. During the study, precertification also yielded a lower return on investment compared to existing EITC enforcement, such as audits, he wrote. One of the key benefits of the EITC is the tax break is "refundable," meaning you can still claim the credit and get a refund with zero taxes owed. That's valuable for lower earners who don't have a tax bill, experts say. To qualify, you need "earned income," or wages from work. The income phase-outs depend on your "qualifying children," based on four IRS tests. "Eligibility is complicated," and residency requirements for qualifying children often cause errors, said Holtzblatt with the Tax Policy Center. For 2025, the tax break is worth up to $8,046 for eligible families. You can claim the maximum EITC with adjusted gross income up to $61,555 for single filers and $68,675 for married couples filing jointly. These phase-outs apply to families with three or more children. As of December 2024, about 23 million workers received the EITC for tax year 2022, according to the IRS. But 1 in 5 eligible taxpayers don't claim the tax break, the agency estimates. Nine Democratic Senators last week voiced concerns about the House-approved EITC changes in a letter to Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La. If enacted, the updates would "further complicate the EITC's existing challenges and make it more difficult to claim," the lawmakers wrote. Higher earners are more likely to face an audit, but EITC claimants have a 5.5 times higher audit rate than the rest of U.S. filers, partly due to improper payments, according to the Bipartisan Policy Center. The proposed EITC change, among other House provisions, still need Senate approval, and it's unclear how the measure could change. However, under the reconciliation process, Senate Republicans only need a simple majority to advance the bill.