logo
Indiana bill to shift more dollars from traditional publics to charter schools earns Senate approval

Indiana bill to shift more dollars from traditional publics to charter schools earns Senate approval

Yahoo21-02-2025

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

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump aides want Texas to redraw its congressional maps to boost the GOP. What would that mean?
Trump aides want Texas to redraw its congressional maps to boost the GOP. What would that mean?

Yahoo

time29 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump aides want Texas to redraw its congressional maps to boost the GOP. What would that mean?

This coverage is made possible through Votebeat, a nonpartisan news organization covering local election administration and voting access. Sign up for Votebeat Texas' free newsletters here. Republicans representing Texas in Congress are considering this week whether to push their state Legislature to take the unusual step of redrawing district lines to shore up the GOP's advantage in the U.S. House. But the contours of the plan, including whether Gov. Greg Abbott would call a special session of the Legislature to redraw the maps, remain largely uncertain. The idea is being driven by President Donald Trump's political advisers, who want to draw up new maps that would give Republicans a better chance to flip seats currently held by Democrats, according to two GOP congressional aides familiar with the matter. That proposal, which would involve shifting GOP voters from safely red districts into neighboring blue ones, is aimed at safeguarding Republicans' thin majority in Congress, where they control the lower chamber, 220-212. The redistricting proposal, and the Trump team's role in pushing it, was first reported by The New York Times Monday. Without a Republican majority in Congress, Trump's legislative agenda would likely stall, and the president could face investigations from newly empowered Democratic committee chairs intent on scrutinizing the White House. Here's what we know about the plan so far: On Capitol Hill, members of the Texas GOP delegation huddled Monday night to discuss the prospect of reshaping their districts. Most of the 25-member group expressed reluctance about the idea, citing concerns about jeopardizing their districts in next year's midterms if the new maps overextended the GOP's advantage, according to the two GOP aides, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the private deliberations. Rep. Jodey Arrington, R-Lubbock, was skeptical of the idea. 'We just recently worked on the new maps,' Arrington told The Texas Tribune. To reopen the process, he said, 'there'd have to be a significant benefit to our state.' The delegation has yet to be presented with mockups of new maps, two aides said. Each state's political maps must be redrawn once a decade, after each round of the U.S. census, to account for population growth and ensure every congressional and legislative district has roughly the same number of people. Texas lawmakers last overhauled their district lines in 2021. There's no federal law that prohibits states from redrawing district maps midcycle, said Justin Levitt, an election law professor at Loyola Marymount University and a former deputy assistant attorney general in the Department of Justice's civil rights division. Laws around the timing to redraw congressional and state district maps vary by state. In Texas, the state constitution doesn't specify timing, so the redrawing of maps is left to the discretion of the governor and the Legislature. Lawmakers gaveled out of their 140-day regular session last week, meaning they would need to be called back for a special session to change the state's political maps. Abbott has the sole authority to order overtime sessions and decide what lawmakers are allowed to consider. A trial is underway in El Paso in a long-running challenge to the state legislative and congressional district maps Texas drew after the 2020 U.S. Census. If Texas redraws its congressional maps, state officials would then ask the court to toss the claims challenging those districts 'that no longer exist,' Levitt said. The portion of the case over the state legislative district maps would continue. If the judge agrees, then both parties would have to file new legal claims for the updated maps. It isn't clear how much maps could change, but voters could find themselves in new districts, and Levitt said redrawing the lines in the middle of the redistricting cycle is a bad idea. 'If the people of Texas think that their representatives have done a bad job, then when the [district] lines change, they're not voting on those representatives anymore,' Levitt said. 'New people are voting on those representatives.' The National Democratic Redistricting Committee, Democrats' national arm for contesting state GOP mapmaking, said the proposal to expand Republicans' stronghold in Texas was 'yet another example of Trump trying to suppress votes in order to hold onto power.' 'Texas's congressional map is already being sued for violating the Voting Rights Act because it diminishes the voting power of the state's fast-growing Latino population,' John Bisognano, president of the NDRC said. 'To draw an even more extreme gerrymander would only assure that the barrage of legal challenges against Texas will continue.' When Republicans in charge of the Legislature redrew the district lines after the 2020 census, they focused on reinforcing their political support in districts already controlled by the GOP. This redistricting proposal would likely take a different approach. As things stand, Republicans hold 25 of the state's 38 congressional seats. Democrats hold 12 seats and are expected to regain control of Texas' one vacant seat in a special election this fall. Most of Texas' GOP-controlled districts lean heavily Republican: In last year's election, 24 of those 25 seats were carried by a Republican victor who received at least 60% of the vote or ran unopposed. The exception was U.S. Rep. Monica De La Cruz, R-Edinburg, who captured 57% of the vote and won by a comfortable 14-point margin. With little competition to speak of, The Times reported, Trump's political advisers believe at least some of those districts could bear the loss of GOP voters who would be reshuffled into neighboring, Democratic-held districts — giving Republican hopefuls a better chance to flip those seats from blue to red. The party in control of the White House frequently loses seats during midterm cycles, and Trump's team is likely looking to offset potential GOP losses in other states and improve the odds of holding on to a narrow House majority. Incumbent Republicans, though, don't love the idea of sacrificing a comfortable race in a safe district for the possibility of picking up a few seats, according to GOP aides. In 2003, after Texas Republicans initially left it up to the courts to draw new lines following the 2000 census, then-U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a Sugar Land Republican, embarked instead on a bold course of action to consolidate GOP power in the state. He, along with his Republican allies, redrew the lines as the opening salvo to a multistate redistricting plan aimed at accumulating power for his party in states across the country. Enraged by the power play, Democrats fled the state, depriving the Texas House of the quorum it needed to function. The rebels eventually relented under threat of arrest, a rare power in the Texas Constitution used to compel absent members back to return to Austin when the Legislature is in session. The lines were then redrawn, cementing the GOP majority the delegation has enjoyed in Washington for the past two decades. However, what's at play this time is different than in the early 2000s, when Republicans had a newfound majority in the Legislature and had a number of vulnerable Democratic incumbents they could pick off. Now, Republicans have been entrenched in the majority for decades and will have to answer the question of whether there's really more to gain, said Kareem Crayton, the vice president of the Brennan Center for Justice's Washington office. 'That's the tradeoff. You can do that too much so that you actually make them so competitive that the other side wins,' Crayton said. 'That's always a danger.' Texas Republicans are planning to reconvene Thursday to continue discussing the plan, according to Rep. Beth Van Duyne, R-Irving, and Rep. Wesley Hunt, R-Houston, who said they will attend the meeting. Members of Trump's political team are also expected to attend, according to Hunt and two GOP congressional aides familiar with the matter. Natalia Contreras is a reporter for Votebeat in partnership with the Texas Tribune. She's based in Corpus Christi. Contact Natalia at ncontreras@ Disclosure: New York Times has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here. Big news: 20 more speakers join the TribFest lineup! New additions include Margaret Spellings, former U.S. secretary of education and CEO of the Bipartisan Policy Center; Michael Curry, former presiding bishop and primate of The Episcopal Church; Beto O'Rourke, former U.S. Representative, D-El Paso; Joe Lonsdale, entrepreneur, founder and managing partner at 8VC; and Katie Phang, journalist and trial lawyer. Get tickets. TribFest 2025 is presented by JPMorganChase.

Permitless concealed carry in North Carolina faces uphill battle after some GOP pushback
Permitless concealed carry in North Carolina faces uphill battle after some GOP pushback

Washington Post

time31 minutes ago

  • Washington Post

Permitless concealed carry in North Carolina faces uphill battle after some GOP pushback

RALEIGH, N.C. — A bill to let adults carry concealed handguns without a permit cleared the North Carolina legislature on Wednesday, however the path to joining the majority of U.S. states with similar laws remains uncertain. The GOP-backed legislation faces a likely veto from Democratic Gov. Josh Stein, as well as pushback from a handful of Republicans who voted against the legislation in the state House. House Speaker Destin Hall acknowledged those concerns after Wednesday's vote.

Missouri approves stadium aid for Kansas City Chiefs and Royals and disaster relief for St. Louis
Missouri approves stadium aid for Kansas City Chiefs and Royals and disaster relief for St. Louis

San Francisco Chronicle​

time33 minutes ago

  • San Francisco Chronicle​

Missouri approves stadium aid for Kansas City Chiefs and Royals and disaster relief for St. Louis

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — Missouri lawmakers on Wednesday approved hundreds of millions of dollars of financial aid to try to persuade the Kansas City Chiefs and Royals to remain in the state and help the St. Louis area recover from a devastating tornado. House passage sends the legislative package to Republican Gov. Mike Kehoe, who called lawmakers into special session with a plea for urgent action. Kehoe is expected to sign the measures into law. Missouri's session paired two otherwise unrelated national trends — a movement for new taxpayer-funded sports stadiums and a reevaluation of states' roles in natural disasters as President Donald Trump's administration reassess federal aid programs. The stadium subsidies already were a top concern in Missouri when a deadly tornado struck St. Louis on May 16, causing an estimated $1.6 billion of damage a day after lawmakers had wrapped up work in their annual regular session. The disaster relief had widespread support. Lawmakers listened attentively on Wednesday as Democratic state Rep. Kimberly-Ann Collins described with a cracking voice how she witnessed the tornado rip the roof off her house and damage her St. Louis neighborhood. Collins said she has no home insurance, slept in her car for days and has accepted food from others. 'Homes are crumbled and leveled,' said Collins, adding: 'It hurts me to my core to see the families that have worked so hard, the businesses that have worked so hard, to see them ripped apart.' Lawmakers approved $100 million of open-ended aid for St. Louis and $25 million for emergency housing assistance in any areas covered under requests for presidential disaster declarations. They also authorized a $5,000 income tax credit to offset insurance policy deductibles for homeowners and renters hit by this year's storms — a provision that state budget director Dan Haug said could eventually cost up to $600 million. The Chiefs and Royals currently play football and baseball in side-by-side stadiums in Jackson County, Missouri, under leases that expire in January 2031. Jackson County voters last year defeated a sales tax extension that would have helped finance an $800 million renovation of the Chiefs' Arrowhead Stadium and a $2 billion ballpark district for the Royals in downtown Kansas City. That prompted lawmakers in neighboring Kansas last year to authorize bonds for up to 70% of the cost of new stadiums in Kansas to lure the teams to their state. The Royals have bought a mortgage for property in Kansas, though the team also has continued to pursue other possible sites in Missouri. The Kansas offer is scheduled to expire June 30, creating urgency for Missouri to approve a counter-offer. Missouri's legislation authorizes bonds covering up to 50% of the cost of new or renovated stadiums, plus up to $50 million of tax credits for each stadium and unspecified aid from local governments. If they choose to stay in Missouri, the Chiefs plan a $1.15 billion renovation of Arrowhead Stadium. Though they have no specific plans in the works, the St. Louis Cardinals also would be eligible for stadium aid if they undertake a project of at least $500 million. Many economists contend public funding for stadiums isn't worth it, because sports tend to divert discretionary spending away from other forms of entertainment rather than generate new income. But supporters said Missouri stands to lose millions of dollars of tax revenue if Kansas City's most prominent professional sports teams move to Kansas. They said Missouri's reputation also would take a hit, particularly if it loses the Chiefs, which have won three of the past six Super Bowls. 'We have the chance to maybe save what is the symbol of this state,' Rep. Jim Murphy, a Republican from St. Louis County, said while illustrating cross-state support for the measure. The legislation faced some bipartisan pushback from those who described it as a subsidy for wealthy sports team owners. Others raised concerns that a property tax break for homeowners, which was added in the Senate to gain votes, violates the state constitution by providing different levels of tax relief in various counties while excluding others entirely.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store