Guest column: Public school legislation and what you're not being told
It's the end of March. The Indiana General Assembly will finalize its two-year budget by the end of April. Public input is needed now (while discussions are still taking place) to protect the financial well-being of public schools.
Republican legislators are out bemoaning the dire Indiana revenue forecasts and telling everyone to be prepared for minimal increases, even status quo, in state funding for the next two years (even citing the negative effects of President Donald Trump's tariff wars). The key bills coming up are: HB 1001, SB 1, HB 1402 and SB 518.
HB 1001 is the House budget, which touts a 2% increase for education. What the public isn't told is that this would be the lowest increase in school funding since 2017 and doesn't even keep pace with the current inflation rate of 3%!
What the public is not being told is that public schools will actually be lucky to receive even a small portion of that 2% increase. Public schools will also lose other sources of revenue from reduction in property taxes and having to divert referendum funds to charter schools.
What the public doesn't realize is that private school vouchers are being opened up to provide public tax dollars to even the wealthiest of parents in the state to pay for private school tuition (welfare for the rich). Projections are that this will amount to $139 million to be subtracted from the overall 2% funding for K-12 public schools.
SB 1 and HB 1402 are both different versions of property tax reductions that will result in a loss of at least $500 million over three years from public schools for capital improvements, transportation and debt payments!
SB 518 would require public schools that pass a referendum (needed to make up for lost state revenue) to divert much of that referendum money to all charter schools in their area, even further reducing public school revenue for which voters intended.
What the public doesn't know is that charter schools already receive an additional $1,400 per student to be comparable to the property tax revenue public schools receive. Charter schools do not have to provide for transportation costs, nor have anywhere close to the debt and facility costs of public schools. If the state wants to give charter schools more, then make that a separate fund — don't continue to rob public schools!
Further, what the public doesn't fully recognize is that private school vouchers and charter school funding with public tax dollars are provided without any public reporting or monitoring as to how public tax dollars are used and spent. No one has any idea as to who is making personal profits rather than spending for student learning.
Charter school fraud with public tax dollars is real (just last February another charter school CEO admitted to embezzling over $900,00). This would not be possible if charter and private schools had to publicly account for the spending of their public tax dollars.
If 'school choice' is as important as Republican legislators say it is, then why do they prioritize funding the wealthy with vouchers and shortchanging the overwhelming choice of public schools by 90% of Indiana students?!
Demand that public school funding becomes the top priority and that public schools actually do receive at least 2% increases in real money without misleading hidden diversions to private vouchers and charters.
Fix HB 1001, SB 1 and say no to SB 518! Demand that private and charter schools receiving state tax dollars be publicly audited!
Call the Indiana Senate (800-382-9467 — Senators Bray and Mishler). Call the Indiana House (800-382-9841 — Representatives Huston and Thompson).
Go to www.indianacoalitionforpubliced.org for more info about being an advocate for your public school.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Entire Fulbright Scholarship board quits, citing Trump admin actions
All members of the Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board announced their resignation on Wednesday, releasing a statement accusing President Donald Trump's administration of political interference in the prestigious exchange program. The 12-member board alleged the Trump administration "usurped the authority of the Board" by denying Fulbright awards to "a substantial number of individuals" who were selected for the 2025-2026 academic year. The board also alleged the administration is currently "subjecting" an additional 1,200 international Fulbright recipients to "an unauthorized review process and could reject more." "We believe these actions not only contradict the statute but are antithetical to the Fulbright mission and the values, including free speech and academic freedom, that Congress specified in the statute," the board said in its statement. MORE: State Department delivers crushing news to Fulbright scholar hopefuls in Afghanistan The board oversees the Fulbright Foreign Student Program, which offers international graduate students, young professionals and artists the opportunity to study and conduct research in the United States. The government-funded, non-partisan program -- which was established by Congress in 1942 under then-President Harry Truman's administration -- operates in more than 160 countries worldwide, providing scholarships to approximately 4,000 foreign students annually. In the joint letter on Wednesday, the board said the awards that were overridden by the administration were concentrated in biology, engineering, architecture, agriculture, crop sciences, animal sciences, biochemistry, medical sciences, music and history. MORE: State Dept. suggests Afghan Fulbright hopefuls seek other options as program stalls The board claimed it has raised "legal issues and our strong objections with" senior Trump administration officials "on multiple occasions," including in writing, but says the concerns have not been acknowledged. In a statement to statement to ABC News after the board announced its resignation, a senior State Department official called the decision "a political stunt attempting to undermine President Trump." "It's ridiculous to believe that these members would continue to have final say over the application process, especially when it comes to determining academic suitability and alignment with President Trump's Executive Orders." the official said. The board, however, said in its statement that the decision was not one "we take lightly," woth the board calling on Congress, the courts and future Fulbright Boards to "prevent the administration's efforts to degrade, dismantle, or even eliminate one of our nation's most respected and valuable programs." "Injecting politics and ideological mandates into the Fulbright program violates the letter and spirit of the law that Congress so wisely established nearly eight decades ago," the board concluded in its statement. Entire Fulbright Scholarship board quits, citing Trump admin actions originally appeared on
Associated Press
12 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Iowa governor rejects GOP bill to increase regulations of Summit's carbon dioxide pipeline
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds on Wednesday rejected a bill that could have introduced more complications for a massive carbon-capture pipeline project routed across several Midwestern states, issuing a rare veto in the Republican-controlled statehouse. The legislation was designed by Iowa House Republicans to increase regulations of Summit Carbon Solutions' estimated $8.9 billion, 2,500-mile (4,023-kilometer) project that cuts across Iowa and already has an approved permit in the state. But in the Senate, it exposed a rift within the party over how to protect property rights. It also provoked loud opposition from members of Iowa's powerful ethanol industry, which argued the project is essential for Iowa's agricultural dominance, for farmers and for construction jobs. Even with the relief from Reynolds' veto, Summit will likely have to readjust plans after South Dakota's governor signed a ban on the use of eminent domain — the government seizure of private property with compensation — to acquire land for carbon dioxide pipelines. Summit's permit application was also rejected in South Dakota. The project has permit approvals in Iowa, Minnesota and North Dakota but faces various court challenges. The Iowa bill would have prohibited the renewal of permits for a carbon dioxide pipeline, limited the use of such a pipeline to 25 years and significantly increased the insurance coverage requirements for the pipeline company. Those provisions would likely have made it less financially feasible for a company to build a carbon dioxide pipeline. As the legislative session wound down, a dozen Republican senators insisted their leaders bring the House-approved bill to the floor for a vote after several years of inaction. The stalemate ended in a long and divisive debate among the Iowa Senate's Republican supermajority, with senators openly criticizing one another and exposing the closed-door discussions that got them there. The pipeline's many critics have for years begged lawmakers for action. They accuse Summit of stepping on their property rights and downplaying the safety risks of building the pipeline alongside family homes, near schools and across ranches. Lee Enterprises and The Associated Press reviewed hundreds of cases that reveal the great legal lengths the company went to to get the project built. In South Dakota, in particular, a slew of eminent domain legal actions to obtain land sparked a groundswell of opposition that was closely watched by lawmakers in Iowa as well. But as debate in the state Senate seemed inevitable, dozens of Summit employees and leaders and members of the Iowa Corn Growers Association, the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association and labor unions made a big showing as well. The pipeline was proposed to carry carbon emissions from ethanol plants in Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota to be stored underground permanently in North Dakota. By lowering carbon emissions from the plants, the pipeline would lower their carbon intensity scores and make them more competitive in the renewable fuels market. The project would also allow ethanol producers and Summit to tap into federal tax credits. Iowa Renewable Fuels Association Executive Director Monte Shaw said in a May 12 statement after the vote that a majority of the Iowa Senate 'turned their back on Iowa agriculture.'
Hamilton Spectator
15 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Permitless concealed carry in North Carolina faces uphill battle after some GOP pushback
RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — 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. 'I would imagine that — math being math — that it's probably a low percentage relative to other bills,' Hall told reporters. If the bill becomes law, North Carolina would become the 30th state in the country to legalize permitless carrying of a concealed handgun, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. North Carolina would also be one of the last states in the Southeast to implement that legislation. The legislation allows for eligible people with valid identification over the age of 18 to carry a concealed handgun. More than half of states with permitless concealed carry set their age limit at 21 and older, while the rest have the legal carrying age at 18, according to the NCSL. Currently, a person must be 21 and older to obtain a concealed handgun permit in North Carolina. To qualify, an applicant must pass a firearms safety training course and not 'suffer from a physical or mental infirmity that prevents the safe handling of a handgun,' according to state law. Approving permitless concealed carry has been a goal of gun-rights activists in North Carolina for years, with House Republicans historically supportive of the idea. Some see it as the next step after Republican lawmakers successfully eliminated the permit system that required sheriffs to conduct character evaluations and criminal history checks for pistol applicants in 2023. Conservative advocates for the bill say it would strengthen Second Amendment rights for North Carolinians. Republican lawmakers also disputed that the bill would make the state more dangerous, as 'law-abiding citizens' would be the only people that would benefit from the permit elimination, not criminals, Republican Rep. Brian Echevarria said. 'Rights to keep and bear arms are constitutionally inseparable,' Echevarria said. 'If a person cannot own a firearm, they cannot bear a firearm.' The bill's passage tees up one of the first opportunities for a likely veto from Stein if he stays aligned with his fellow Democrats in the legislature. Stein has a more powerful veto stamp than his predecessor Roy Cooper , after Republicans lost their House supermajority last year that allowed them to override vetoes and enact their legislative agenda with relative ease. Now, House Republicans would need to count on a Democrat to join in their override efforts. Reaching that goal seems especially daunting, considering all of the present House Democrats — and two Republicans — voted against the bill. The governor's office didn't respond to a request for comment on the legislation, but House Deputy Democratic Leader Cynthia Ball said in a committee Tuesday that Stein was opposed to it. Several Democratic legislators said it would make communities unsafe by loosening who can carry a concealed handgun without training. Democrats also raised issue with the age limit set in the bill, saying it would put guns in the hands of young people who aren't yet mature enough to have one. 'Do you not remember when you were 18? We are prone and so susceptible to peer pressure, we are hotheaded, we are emotional,' Democratic Rep. Tracy Clark said on the House floor after retelling her personal experience of losing two friends in college to gun violence. Those seeking a permit for their concealed handgun — such as for the purpose of traveling with a firearm to a state that requires a permit — would still be able to do so. The bill also heightens the felony punishment for those who assault law enforcement officers or first responders with a firearm. A separate bill that makes gun safety courses available at North Carolina community colleges for people 18 and up passed in a near-unanimous House vote directly after the concealed carry permit repeal legislation was approved. ___ Associated Press writer Gary D. Robertson in Raleigh contributed to this report. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
