UPDATE: GOP budget includes big shift in school funding

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana schools could see major shifts in funding under a state budget plan presented by Republicans who control the Indiana House.

Republican leaders said that their two-year, $28 billion budget held most spending flat and avoided tax increases. The budget would keep overall education spending at current levels, but includes changes to the distribution formula will hurt some urban and rural schools and help some suburban schools. The House Ways and Means Committee is slated to vote on the budget proposal Friday morning.

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Rep. Jeff Espich, R-Uniondale, said the proposed school funding formula eliminates extra grants for small schools and only pays schools for students actually enrolled, eliminating the extra cash shrinking districts currently receive to help ease their financial losses after students leave.

"The money really should follow the child — and the child should exist," Espich said. "You shouldn't be funding a ghost child."

Republican lawmakers have pushed for years to even out the disparities between schools that get high per-pupil funding and those that get lower amounts. Shrinking urban and rural districts often get higher funding per student and fast-growing suburban districts get lower amounts.

When Democrats controlled the House in recent years, they insisted on buffers to prop up schools with declining enrollments in an effort to minimize teacher layoffs and increases in class size. Now that Republicans control the House, GOP leaders want to quickly equal out per-pupil funding levels.

The proposed funding formula aims to move each school district toward its "target" amount of per-student funding, which is a base amount of spending plus additional money for districts with larger numbers of poor students. Most districts are currently above their target amounts and would gradually receive less per-pupil funding to eventually reach their target within 9 years.

But a handful of districts currently more than 20 percent above their per-pupil targets would see bigger drops immediately because the formula states that districts cannot be more than 20 percent above target numbers. Espich said the abrupt change was needed.

"If you don't do something rather drastic, you have these outliers that are sucking up all the money," Espich said.

Education officials said the changes proposed Thursday would mean serious cuts of millions of dollars to some districts. Even keeping overall education spending flat over the next two years amounts to a cut, they argue, because of schools' rising costs.

"We knew this was not going to be a pretty picture," said Dennis Costerison, executive director of the Indiana Association of School Business Officials. "It's a cut. There's no other way to look at it."

Rep. William Crawford, D-Indianapolis, said schools are continually being told that they have to do more with less.

"I don't know how much they're going to be able to do," he said.

House Minority Leader Patrick Bauer, D-South Bend, said the budget proposal will hurt public schools, as will Republican education initiatives such as expanded charter schools and vouchers that use tax money to help parents send their children to private school.

"We're concerned about the whole approach to education this year," Bauer said. "There are going to be a lot of teachers laid off and a lot of programs cut this fall."


  • More differences
    Also, let's think about simple things like paper, pencils, and other school supplies. Who remembers the Indy Star article about the IPS teacher that went dumpster diving in Carmel and retrieved a treasure trove of NEW, UNOPENED notebooks, boxes of crayons, pencils, etc. Look at the difference in what kind of support the schools in these districts get from the students' families. It shouldn't be that way, but it is a fact that schools have to deal with.
  • Expenses
    Don't forget to add in the salaries of special ed teachers, security, counselors. Also, I'm speculating now, but I'm guessing teachers salaries might be higher in e.g. IPS, Gary districts to try to attract teachers to work there. I'm guessing there's probably a fair amount of turnover in teacher ranks in those districts, but would like to know if facts bear that out?
  • Disparity...
    I'm pretty sure the IPS number in question is closer to $9,000 than $11,000 - but I won't let the facts get in the way of your story.

    I agree that the $2-3,000 does seem like a pretty big difference between two districts however it does make sense on a couple levels.

    First, that $3,000 goes to feeding better than 80% of the IPS kids lunch (and breakfast). I know this isn't your problem Rich, but I'm just stating a fact.

    Second, I'm sure some of that money goes to English as a 2nd language costs...again, not your problem.

    Third, HSE, Carmel, Fishers, etc are maintaining buildings that are much newer and more energy efficient. The facilities fee per student is far higher per student in IPS than the doughnut schools...at least for the next twenty years.

    Don't worry, HSE's portion will increase when more IPS kids start enrolling in the country schools. My kids go to a Charter (that we love), but the new bill that just passed is more likely to distribute students with special needs (financial, educational and emotional) to the private and county schools than do anything else.
    IPS, GARY= almost $11,000 per pupil
    HSE= $5,800 PER PUPIL

    Who is getting screwed in this deal...hint, it's not urban poor schools.
    • Someone please make them explain
      why is a singular focus on per-pupil funding is appropriate?? Sure, it makes a great sound bite. But stop and think about all of the expenses that different school districts have that are reflected in those numbers, and then let's compare.
    • Just close them
      Why bother having schools in urban and rural areas? Just make sure that the suburban white kids have, say, Carmel HS (isn't that the Governor's district?) and let the rest of us fend for ourselves. That fits perfectly with the rest of the legislature's apparent plan for Indiana. I wonder what will happen when all those UAW members with kids in rural public schools finally realize what they've voted for....

    Post a comment to this story

    We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
    You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
    Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
    No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
    We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

    Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

    Sponsored by

    facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
    Subscribe to IBJ
    1. How much you wanna bet, that 70% of the jobs created there (after construction) are minimum wage? And Harvey is correct, the vast majority of residents in this project will drive to their jobs, and to think otherwise, is like Harvey says, a pipe dream. Someone working at a restaurant or retail store will not be able to afford living there. What ever happened to people who wanted to build buildings, paying for it themselves? Not a fan of these tax deals.

    2. Uh, no GeorgeP. The project is supposed to bring on 1,000 jobs and those people along with the people that will be living in the new residential will be driving to their jobs. The walkable stuff is a pipe dream. Besides, walkable is defined as having all daily necessities within 1/2 mile. That's not the case here. Never will be.

    3. Brad is on to something there. The merger of the Formula E and IndyCar Series would give IndyCar access to International markets and Formula E access the Indianapolis 500, not to mention some other events in the USA. Maybe after 2016 but before the new Dallara is rolled out for 2018. This give IndyCar two more seasons to run the DW12 and Formula E to get charged up, pun intended. Then shock the racing world, pun intended, but making the 101st Indianapolis 500 a stellar, groundbreaking event: The first all-electric Indy 500, and use that platform to promote the future of the sport.

    4. No, HarveyF, the exact opposite. Greater density and closeness to retail and everyday necessities reduces traffic. When one has to drive miles for necessities, all those cars are on the roads for many miles. When reasonable density is built, low rise in this case, in the middle of a thriving retail area, one has to drive far less, actually reducing the number of cars on the road.

    5. The Indy Star announced today the appointment of a new Beverage Reporter! So instead of insightful reports on Indy pro sports and Indiana college teams, you now get to read stories about the 432nd new brewery open or some obscure Hoosier winery winning a county fair blue ribbon. Yep, that's the coverage we Star readers crave. Not.