|
Indiana School Consolidation
Developments (Pg. 2)
School Consolidation (Pg. 1,
incl. index)
(Pg. 2) (Pg.
3, incl. 2009 bills) (Pg. 4)
(Pg. 5, 2010 General
Assembly)
IU Public
Opinion Survey: 66% Oppose School Consolidation (CEEP, 1/7/09)
-
"...Opposition to consolidation increased to 66 percent when
residents were asked if they would support or oppose consolidating their
community school district with another district...(Terry Spradlin, survey
co-author, states regarding consolidation,) 'Whereas some see it as a
possibility to enrich curriculum and possibly save tax dollars, they're just not
convinced that it's really going to produce higher academic outcomes for
students, or be something they'd desire locally. They identify, citizens
identify with their local school communities, with their local school district,
they utilize the school district's buildings, it's a part of their community.
When a school district is consolidated, it's losing a sense of community. So
citizens tend to be against consolidation, and that was clear by the results of
the 2008 public opinion survey.'..." (more)
Streamlining Government: "...one size does not fit
all..." (Senate President Pro Tempore David C. Long, 1/10/09)
(The following is
reprinted from the January 9, 2009 Indianapolis Star and includes Senator Long's
comments, "It's important that we give local governments, and
counties in particular, the option to enact or not enact certain proposals.
Giving them flexibility and options, understanding that one size does not fit
all, is a perfect fit for the concept of home rule. Let the locals decide for
themselves the structure they want and whether this makes sense for them.")
Indiana
voters might get a say in downsizing local governments
Legislative support grows
for letting local governments put downsizing to a vote
By Mary Beth Schneider
mary.beth.schneider@indystar.com
Gov. Mitch Daniels' proposals to reshape local government in Indiana may need
more than the approval of legislators -- they also may need the OK of voters.
Senate President Pro Tempore David C. Long, R-Fort Wayne, said Thursday he
thinks such decisions should be made by voters in each county, rather than
mandated by the state.
"It's important that we give local governments, and counties in
particular, the option to enact or not enact certain proposals," Long said.
"Giving them flexibility and options, understanding that one size does
not fit all, is a perfect fit for the concept of home rule. Let the locals
decide for themselves the structure they want and whether this makes sense for
them."
Long's words, as the top Republican in the legislature, were significant as
the latest, and strongest, sign that the reforms face a rocky road in the
legislative session that began this week.
If embraced by the General Assembly, that county-by-county route would be a
major setback to Daniels' plans to streamline government in all 92 counties by
eliminating three-member county commissions in favor of a single county
executive who reports to a county council; eliminating township governments;
eliminating some county elected offices in favor of appointees by the chief
executive; and consolidating smaller school districts.
Those are among 20 recommendations Daniels is pushing that were proposed by
the Local Government Reform Commission, led by former Gov. Joe Kernan and
Indiana Chief Justice Randall Shepard.
Daniels' office had no immediate comment on Long's call for more local
control.
Long suggested that making the changes subject to voter approval might be the
only way to get them through the legislature.
"Giving people the option to decide for themselves gives a lot more
legislators the freedom, I think, to vote for something they might think is a
good idea if (their) constituents feel it is," he said.
David Bottorff, executive director of the Association of Indiana Counties,
said his organization also favors making the reforms optional and wants county
commissioners to first decide whether to even put them on the ballot.
And he echoed what has become the battle cry of opponents of the changes:
"One size does not fit all."
Senate Minority Leader Vi Simpson, D-Ellettsville, applauded Long's remarks,
saying "they have moved to where we (Democrats) are, which is local
optional."
Simpson said she doesn't think the reforms can pass the legislature
otherwise.
House Speaker B. Patrick Bauer, D-South Bend, also said he thinks any changes
to local government should be decided by voter referendum.
But, he added, "there's nothing guaranteed that they'll make it through
the legislature (even if made optional). . . . There's a lot of issues ahead of
this one."
House Minority Leader Brian Bosma, R-Indianapolis, said one option that has
been discussed would require counties to hold a referendum on whether to
eliminate county commissioners or townships.
"I'm not sure that's the right course of action, because of the
patchwork of local units of government that could result," Bosma said.
"But it certainly is one option to consider."
Mary Dieter, communications director for Mysmartgov.org, a group formed to
push for the reforms, raised the same objection.
"While Kernan-Shepard makes accommodations for local needs and
circumstances, it provides a uniform blueprint so that every county's structure
will look alike," she said in an e-mail. "We think that's the best way
to ensure that Hoosiers understand their own government and have confidence in
it."
The Case
For School Mergers (Editorial, Ind'pls Star, 1/10/09)
January 10, 2009
The case for school mergers
Taxpayers in Indiana support at least five school districts
with fewer than 300 students. The smallest, Dewey Township Schools in LaPorte
County, is educating a mere 168 students this school year.
New Harmony Schools in Southern Indiana is only one better: It
has 169 students this school year, according to the state Department of
Education. The entire student populations in the Cannelton, Cass Township and
Medora districts are smaller than the freshmen classes at most Central Indiana
high schools.
Granted, bigger certainly isn't better when it comes to
education. In fact, the recent trend is toward smaller schools to improve
student achievement.
But 168 students in an entire district? It borders on the
absurd at a time when education dollars are tight and taxpayers must strain to
support costly and inefficient bureaucracies.
Yet, of all of Gov. Mitch Daniels' proposals to streamline
government, the most controversial is his pitch to consolidate school districts
with fewer than 1,000 students.
Alumni, residents and educators from small districts, usually
in rural areas, argue that long-held traditions and community pride would be
destroyed by forced consolidation. They have a point. Schools often are the glue
that holds together small communities.
But Indiana went through a wave of consolidation more than
four decades ago that in its own way helped launch new traditions, generate new
rivalries and bring together communities that while slightly larger are no less
valuable.
It's also important to understand that Daniels isn't pushing
to close schools, merely consolidate administrative functions to save money on
overhead costs.
The pitch for consolidation also isn't just about saving
money. Larger districts can offer options such as Advanced Placement classes and
technical training that the smallest districts struggle to provide.
And while large districts sometimes post abysmal high school
graduation rates, small districts also can fall short. Cannelton Schools, with
294 students enrolled this year, recorded a 67 percent graduation rate last
school year.
Daniels isn't talking about stripping small communities of
their school pride. In fact, he's called for a moratorium on closing high
schools for five years after consolidation.
The goal is to make maximum use of every tax dollar in an era
when spending on education almost certainly will stagnate if not decline because
of the state's and nation's economic problems.
The
Research Behind The Rhetoric Of School District Consolidation (Terry
Spradlin,
1/11/09)
The above is the title of a PowerPoint presentation given by
Mr. Spradlin (Associate Director for Education Policy with the Center For
Evaluation & Education Policy located at Indiana University) on September
29, 2008. Several of his "Findings and Recommendations" are as
follows:
- Consolidation
has no proven positive impact on student achievement and may negatively
impact student achievement
- Some research
suggests optimal school
and school corporation
sizes exist (i.e., smaller schools in bigger districts); however, research
is inconsistent and inclusive
- At best, limited research (is) available that indicates meaningful cost savings are realized from consolidation
on a systemic basis
- Thus, consolidation
should be encouraged on a case-by-case basis only, not mandated on a
wholesale basis (e.g. state of Maine). In particular, consolidation
may be beneficial for the smallest school
corporations with proper strategic planning. (A case can be made to
consolidate districts with less than 1,000 students; less compelling
evidence the bigger the target population)
The PowerPoint presentation is available here.
"...School Corporation Collaboration, Cooperation And
Consolidation..." (CEEP, 1/14/09) - "...School officials should be
wary of merging several small schools if the goal of the consolidation is to
improve performance...a close relationship does not appear to exist between the
factors of money spent and student performance as indicated by student
scores...Studies indicate that there are no significant effects on school
performance after consolidation...student achievement in small schools is at
least equal, perhaps even superior, to the student achievement demonstrated in
large schools...Although consolidation has been shown to reduce costs in small
school districts in the short run, these reductions are replaced in the long run
by other expenditures, such as the hiring of more administrators and specialized
staff...Consolidation often becomes politically unpopular, reduces local
control, and negligibly impacts educational outcomes. As a result, consolidation
may not be the most effective strategy to help drive more money into the
classroom..." (more)
Commentary: School Consolidation Should Be Local Decision (Lida R. Moeller,
1/17/09)
(Lida resides within Caston School Corporation and sent this
letter to her state representatives.)
I am writing in opposition to
legislation mandating school consolidation.
The Kernan-Shepard Report advocated consolidation of districts with fewer
than 2,000 students, but Governor Daniels knew that would be immediate political
suicide. Daniels halved that number
to reduce the political outcry. Unfortunately
much of that report was based on Marion County, and is not easily extrapolated
to real life in less populated areas. Rural
taxpayers in Indiana are tired of those in Indianapolis deciding what is best
for us.
I have spent a great deal of
time reviewing much DOE school district and Advanced Placement material.
I would like you to consider the following factors:
1) School districts should
decide on a local basis what is best for their students and taxpayers. My school district is on a very sound financial basis, much
better than many larger districts. Bigger
is not always better. Look at
the problems in Indianapolis Public Schools, South Bend Schools, and many
districts in Lake County. Many
times bigger equals more bureaucracy and more layers of inefficiency.
The bigger government gets, the more unresponsive it often becomes.
The Marion County Central Library would be a good example of
"big" becoming a financial fiasco.
2) Many schools districts,
on their own initiative, are already pursuing possible mergers of services
(transportation, purchasing, curriculum, etc).
In my athletic conference alone (Mid-West Conference), four schools
(three in White County and Caston) are currently undergoing studies regarding
this matter. Combining aspects to
achieve efficiencies, while not harming the local school, is best decided by the
local school district. They are in
a position to know what works for them.
3) Gov. Daniels has promised
not to shutter a high school for five
years. This implies that some
schools will be closed after five years. There
are 46 school corporations in Indiana with fewer than 1,000 students.
There is no way the absorbing corporations have the capacity to enroll
that many additional students without additional building construction.
Building construction cost will easily outstrip any economic efficiencies
from consolidation. Not building
will result in very large class sizes. Representation
from rural areas on consolidated school
boards will be weak or nonexistent.
4) Gov. Daniels states that
rural schools do not offer as many AP classes.
That is not true when viewing the percentage of students taking an AP
class. The average percentage of
students in smaller schools taking AP classes is as high, or higher, than the
percentage taking AP classes in much larger districts.
Consolidation won't change this issue either.
In almost all cases, the 46 corporations would be consolidated with a
corporation which is not significantly bigger, and doesn't offer significantly
more AP classes. Caston offers 4 AP
classes. The Fulton County
townships would most probably be consolidated with Rochester. Rochester offers 5-6 AP classes, including some that are
considered the less "academic" AP classes.
5) Not everything can be
quantified in dollars. My children
are 1/2 a mile from their school (k-12). They
are extremely active in sports and extra-curricular activities.
If consolidated, they will be 12 miles from the "new" school.
The students currently at the fringes of the Caston boundary (~6 miles
from Caston) will be approximately 20 miles from the consolidated school.
Twenty miles. This
will have a profound effect on these students and their families.
a)
Student and parent participation will probably plummet.
Time and transportation issues will occur.
This will be even more of a hardship with rising gas prices and the
current economy.
b)
Students will spend a great deal of time on a bus, eroding education and
family time.
c)
Safety--the districts included are mostly in hilly rural southern Indiana
or in the lake effect snow northwestern portion of the state (west of hwy. 31
and north of hwy. 24). Fog, snow, and ice are constant winter threats.
Weather changes quickly and student transportation safety is a big
concern. High school students will
also be driving much longer distances over rural roads.
d)
Districts will have greatly increased transportation costs.
Fewer high school students will probably be allowed to drive, (due to
distance and cost) thus further increasing the burden on district provided
transportation.
6) A recent study by Indiana
University states consolidation does NOT result in increased academic success.
Consolidation appears to result in many negative consequences, especially
if increased academic success is not the result.
Sometimes things are ramrodded
through with perceived cost effectiveness that never materializes.
Daniels and daylight savings time would be a good example of this.
The copious jobs he promised due to a time change never came.
Still, most people in this country have no idea what time it is in
Indiana. It's time for those from
rural Indiana to control our fate and the educational lives of our
children!
The current economy and unemployment are what deserve legislator time this
session. I ask that you focus
on these important items and not be strayed into a lengthy fight over issues
such as school consolidation.
Sincerely,
Lida R. Moeller
Commentary: Small But Mighty District Offers Plenty For Students (Ind'pls Star,
Kris Feutz, 1/17/09)
(Kris is a teacher with Eminence Community
School Corporation. The following originally appeared in the Ind'pls Star on
January 17, 2009.)
The article about Eminence Schools was very misleading ("Poll: Hoosiers
opposed to Daniels' school consolidation proposal," Jan. 8).
Most of our classrooms are full. The article makes it seem as though we
barely exist. There was nothing about the advances in technology that we use
with our students. There was nothing about the dual-credit courses our students
can take. What about the clubs, groups and community service organizations that
many of our students are involved with? Our students have access to wonderful
career and technical classes, too.
Is wrecking the lives of more than 540 students and their families and 50 or
so staff members really going to save our state? You have no idea of the anxiety
that abounds in our great but small community.
Kris Feutz
More
Money For Classrooms? Not So Easy, Critics Of Daniels’ Plan Warn (The Journal
Gazette, 1/25/09)
Niki Kelly | The Journal Gazette (Ft. Wayne)
Published: January 25, 2009
One of Gov. Mitch Daniels’ education initiatives this year sounds like a
winner – funnel more dollars into the classroom rather than spending them on
overhead and administration.
But school districts in the trenches say there is more to the discussion than
a sound bite. For instance, what counts as instructional spending? Is it fair to
infer that the other spending is wasteful? And should districts be punished for
not improving?
Those are the details that will likely shape the debate on Senate Bill 525,
which will be heard in the Senate Education Committee, possibly in two weeks.
“There is a massive new funding source available to use that won’t cost
taxpayers an additional cent, and that is to begin spending the education
dollars more efficiently than we do today,” Daniels said in his State of the
State speech. “Especially when basic academic programs are lacking, it is
totally unacceptable that 39 cents of every education dollar is spent outside
the classroom.”
The governor’s program is loosely based on a national program called the 65
percent solution, whose goal is to spend 65 percent of all education dollars in
the classroom. Only a few states so far have passed laws relating to the idea.
And a 2005 Standard & Poor’s report found there is no correlation
between the percentage of dollars spent in the classroom and academic
achievement.
Daniels isn’t pushing for schools to hit any specific magic number, instead
focusing on how individual districts improve over time.
And Pete Miller, the state’s budget and efficiency expert on school
spending, also cautioned not to compare districts, because each one has unique
circumstances affecting its budget.
“We are pretty sensitive to this whole thing. We understand we need a plan
to restructure and streamline ourselves, and quite frankly we think the governor
is on the right track,” said Dan Clark, deputy executive director for the
Indiana State Teachers Association.
But Clark thinks the governor’s office should more directly involve schools
in the discussions and be more specific on what they should do.
How it works
All current school spending is broken down into four categories. These
categories were approved by the State Board of Education in 2007 after
consulting with a working group of educational professionals.
The four categories are:
•Student academic achievement expenditures – includes teachers,
principals, speech pathologists, textbooks, special education services,
remediation and teachers’ retirement.
•Student instructional support – includes guidance counselors, nurses,
curriculum development, superintendents, school boards and technology.
•Overhead and operational – includes legal services, business support,
maintenance, transportation, food service, insurance, high school band uniforms
and athletic coaches.
•Non-operational expenditures – includes school construction, sports
facilities, debt, interest, lease rental.
The first two categories make up instructional spending – or the classroom
dollars statistic that Daniels uses. Statewide, the number is 61 percent.
Locally, the percentages range from 70 percent for Fort Wayne Community
Schools and 71 percent for Wabash City Schools to 57 percent for Whitko
Community Schools and 56 percent for MSD Steuben County Schools.
“We strive to be the best, but I don’t know that we are doing anything
differently than any other district,” said Celia Briggs, superintendent at
Wabash City Schools.
Definition quirks
There are a number of problems with how the categories work.
First, most school officials are tiring of the idea that the remaining 39
percent of spending is somehow squandered.
“I definitely think the interpretation is somewhat wrong because you have
to heat buildings, run buses, feed kids. The utilities you have no control over.
Insurance claims you have no control over,” Briggs said. “Everything factors
into the money to run a school corporation, and I don’t think we can ignore
these other things.”
Statewide, the percentage rises to 85 percent if specific property tax levies
for transportation, capital projects and debt service are left out of the
equation.
“I don’t disagree with trying to get every dollar we can in the
corporation into the classroom. That is exactly what we want to do. The concern,
I guess, is just a complete explanation of the details,” said Steve Clason,
superintendent at Whitko Community Schools.
“When you look at the dollars I am allowed by law to spend in the
classroom, 87 percent goes to teachers and aides. It’s just a matter of what
you consider.”
Another problem has to do with which salaries count as instructional as
opposed to those calculated as overhead.
Clark said he would prefer to see superintendents and school boards taken out
of the classroom number but said other school employees who are just as vital as
nurses should be included, such as bus drivers, janitors and cooks.
Currently, if small school corporations merge and use savings from the
elimination of superintendents and school boards for teachers, the percentage
would not move because those dollars are already counted in the classroom
number.
“We don’t think that makes sense,” Clark said.
A third criticism of the system is that it discriminates against growing
school districts that have to construct new school buildings to keep up with the
population. That’s because every increased dollar spent on debt hurts the
classroom percentage.
Both Briggs and FWCS Chief Financial Officer Kathy Friend agreed their
numbers are high in part because they have stagnant or declining enrollment and
haven’t had any significant building projects in recent years.
“Because we have low debt it shifts our dollars to the first and second
category,” Friend said. “Growing schools can’t help that they have to
increase debt. In a way they are getting punished.”
Clason also noted that in the late 1990s the state changed the way schools
could pay for teacher retirement packages. So they let schools borrow money to
pay off future retirement benefits and pay it back out of the debt service levy,
another reason Whitko’s percentage isn’t as good as it could be.
Moving percentage
Some of these small issues are part of an overall criticism that the
percentage includes money spent from property tax funds that districts aren’t
allowed to transfer.
That is why the dollars-to-the-classroom bill would allow districts to move
money from those funds to other educational programs with permission from the
Office of Management and Budget.
This is essentially the first step in eliminating the funding silos or
buckets the state currently uses.
Ryan Kitchell, director of the state OMB, said the bill requires a district
to pass a resolution saying the transfer will not cause a shortfall in that fund
and also does not allow the district to come back and ask for an increase in its
levy at a later time.
“We heard from districts that the money is boxed in and can’t be used in
the classroom so this is a response,” he said.
But it comes at a time when the state has now taken over 100percent of the
General Fund, meaning school operational expenses are no longer paid for by
local property taxes. This move would negate that to a point.
“All they are doing is backdooring the taxpayers,” Clason said. “That
is the money we use to put roofs on buildings, pay utility bills, recoat parking
lots. It might free us up for a few years then buildings start to degrade and
our operating budget has increased.”
Sen. Teresa Lubbers, R-Indianapolis, author of Senate Bill 525, said she
thinks this flexibility would be helpful, with guidelines.
“It’s not that transportation isn’t important, for instance, but when
we are skewed one way we want to correct it,” she said.
House Republican Leader Brian Bosma, of Indianapolis, strongly supports the
concept but agrees that some categories might need to be tweaked.
“We need to open up the discussion,” he said. “I am open to a lot of
suggestions – a mix of carrots and sticks with the goal of getting more money
to the classroom.”
Another part of the bill would require districts to use the state’s
quantity purchasing program to buy certain services, supplies and equipment
unless they can find the goods or supplies elsewhere cheaper.
The legislation even allows the State Board of Accounts to fine districts up
to $10,000 if they find the district didn’t use the program and spent more
money to buy the products.
And the bill orders the Department of Education to create a reward system for
districts that improve their system.
“I think the concept is the best idea we’ve had in years,” said Rep.
Phyllis Pond, R-New Haven, a retired educator. “Schools have a habit of moving
people into administration. We need to do the same thing industry is doing,
looking at every single job and seeing if that job is contributing to the end
product.”
Looking Beyond Governor Daniels' Sound Bite: "Only 61 cents of every
dollar spent in our schools makes it to the classroom..." (retitled,
IASBO, 1/27/09)
(This Position Paper, "Classroom Spending
Measures," of the Indiana Association of School Business Officials has been
reproduced from its "Inter-Com,
October 2008" publication. It is provided here because "classroom spending" and "school consolidation"
are related issues according to Daniels. - Webmaster)
* * * * *
Executive Summary
The Indiana Association of School Business Officials strongly supports the
continuing goal of placing more dollars into the classroom. It is important that
strategies that call for more spending in the classroom focus on those
expenditures that can legally be paid for instructional purposes. Recent
comments express a desire for monies from other school funds be utilized in the
classroom. The vast majority of these other funds cannot be used legally for the
classroom. Further, these other funds receive their monies from property taxes
and not state funding. Using these monies for classroom purposes would
necessitate the creation of new property tax levies. Currently, 85% of the
expenditures from the General Fund and Special Education Preschool Fund are
classroom related. Instructional expenditures can legally be made from these
funds. Indiana ASBO will support concepts that provide additional funding for
every student if the concepts do not sacrifice the funds needed to operate our
public schools.
* * * * *
Governor Mitch Daniels has issued a proposal for the next session of the
Indiana General Assembly to increase spending in the classroom. He will ask the
2009 legislature to require school corporations to use the Indiana Department of
Administration and their new purchasing cooperative system, OneIndiana, to
purchase goods and services unless schools can show they can get better prices
elsewhere. The Governor praises the work of the Education Service Centers
regarding their cooperative purchasing efforts. However, he also believes there
are more opportunities for savings. Governor Daniels would expect that any
savings would go into classroom instruction.
Indiana ASBO strongly supports the concept of cooperative purchasing and the
gains made by the Education Service Centers. The OneIndiana concept where school
corporations may utilize the state’s quantity purchase agreements (QPA’s)
should provide more opportunities to save. Further, IASBO is partnering with U.
S. Communities, a national purchasing cooperative, to provide yet another tool
for increasing the efficiency of purchasing in Indiana school corporations.
When the Governor presented his proposal, he stated, "Only 61 cents of
every dollar spent in our schools makes it to the classroom, even under liberal
interpretation of what counts. Each one percent of improvement would mean over
$100 million new dollars to hire more teachers, pay them better, make class
sizes smaller, reduce the cost of textbooks, and so on. That’s a huge
opportunity, and we must seize it."
The Governor’s statement is based on data generated as a result of HEA 1006
(P.L. 191-2006) and the new Financial Management, Analysis and Reporting System
(FinMARS). This legislation directed the Department of Education and the Office
of Management & Budget to implement the statute. A working group was formed
to create a plan of action (approved by the State Board of Education on
September 7, 2006) and define the various elements of the legislation. The
following agencies or associations comprised the working group:
• Department of Education
• Office of Management & Budget
• Department of Local Government Finance
• State Board of Accounts
• Legislative Services Agency
• Indiana School Boards Association
• Indiana Association of Public School Superintendents
• Indiana Association of School Business Officials
This legislation created four categories of expenditure that were defined by
the working group as follows:
• Student Academic Achievement
Includes those direct expenditures related to instruction, providing
instruction, instructional materials, instructional supervision whether within
the school corporation or through a cooperative arrangement with another
governmental unit or charter school. Activities dealing directly with the
teaching of pupils, including teachers (salaries and related fringe benefits),
teacher aides, principals, educational media services, textbooks, etc.
• Student Instructional Support
Includes expenditures for those services that provide administrative,
technical, personal and logistical support to facilitate and enhance instruction
of pupils. Pupils support services included in these expenditures are
attendance, social work, guidance, health, psychological, speech, pathology,
audiology, instruction/curriculum development, governing body direction and
executive administrative activities.
• Overhead and Operational
Includes expenditures for the operation of the school corporation. Areas
included are fiscal services (budgeting, payroll, accounting), operation and
maintenance of facilities, security, pupil transportation, food services,
purchasing, and technology.
• Nonoperational
Includes expenditures that are not instructional or operational. Expenditures
included in this category are facilities acquisition and construction, purchase
of non-instructional equipment, and debt service obligations.
P.L. 191-2006 calls for the improvement of the ratio of student instructional
expenditures to all other expenditures. The working group defined student
instructional expenditures as Student Academic Achievement expenditures plus
Student Instructional Support expenditures. All other expenditures were defined
as Overhead and Operational expenditures plus Nonoperational expenditures. All
of these definitions were recommended by the working group to the State Board of
Education who approved them on February 7, 2007.
Governor Daniels’ statement that only 61% of all educational expenditures
makes it into the classroom relies on the above definitions. The base
expenditure amount (100% total) for this calculation includes the Debt Service
Fund, Retirement/Severance Bond Fund, Capital Projects Fund, Transportation
Fund, School Bus Replacement Fund, Special Education Preschool Fund, local rainy
day funds, construction funds, school lunch funds, levy excess funds, various
federal and other grant funds. In other words, the base expenditure amount
contains monies that cannot legally be used for instructional purposes. If only
the General Fund and Special Education Preschool Fund expenditure totals are
included in the base expenditure amount (and these are the only two funds that
can currently be used totally for instruction), 85 cents out of every dollar
spent goes into the classroom. In many respects, this 85% calculation depicts a
more realistic picture of what is actually being spent in the classroom.
The total amount of state-wide expenditures from all school funds is just a
little over $10.5 billion. As the Governor indicated, one percent (1%) of that
amount is approximately $100 million. The problem with looking for $100 million
to shift into instruction is that, legally, school corporations cannot spend the
vast majority of these monies in the classroom. The statutes are very clear that
expenditures for instructional purposes cannot be made from the Debt Service,
Transportation, School Bus Replacement, Levy Excess, Retirement/Severance, and
other such funds. The General Assembly created these funds for specific
(non-instructional) school purposes that did not include classroom expenditures.
Current legislation would need to be amended to allow any of these monies to be
channeled into the classroom and taken away from their original purpose.
The aforementioned funds receive their funding exclusively from property tax
revenues. These are not dollars generated through the State of Indiana.
Therefore, moving monies from these funds into the classroom would necessitate a
shift of local property tax dollars from their current purpose to classroom
purposes. With the recent emphasis on property tax relief for the homeowner,
this raises the question whether new dollars into the classroom would come from
property taxes. In 2008, the General Assembly eliminated property taxes from the
General and Special Education Preschool Funds for property tax relief. Would new
property tax levies be created for these funds in order to put more dollars into
the classroom? This would be a difficult decision for legislators.
The concept of putting $100 million of additional revenue into the classrooms
across the state is laudable, but the movement of monies from these
non-instructional funds is problematic. Students must be transported to their
schools (Transportation Fund), new school buses must be purchased to assure
continuing student safety (School Bus Replacement Fund), school facilities must
be maintained for health and safety issues (Capital Projects Fund), students
must be provided meals (school lunch funds), and debt must be paid (Debt Service
Fund). Efficiencies can always be achieved in each of these non-instructional
areas, but any savings in many of these funds will impact property taxes.
Further, the unknown negative impact of the 2008 circuit breaker legislation on
the Capital Projects Fund, the Transportation Fund and the School Bus
Replacement Fund will be a factor reducing the amount of dollars available in
each of these funds as well as the possible efficiencies that can be achieved in
each area.
The Indiana Association of School Business Officials strongly supports the
continuing goal of placing more dollars into the classroom through legal avenues
such as savings through cooperative purchasing activities. As we work toward
that goal, however, it is important to recognize, assess, and have a plan for
dealing with the "mine fields" that will have to be crossed in order
to use monies from funds other than the General Fund and Special Education
Preschool Fund for classroom purposes. Indiana ASBO stands ready to assist with
concepts that can provide additional funding for every student and every
classroom without sacrificing the funds that operate our public schools.
Contact Person: Dennis Costerison, Executive Director, Indiana Association of
School Business Officials, One North Capitol, Suite 1215, Indianapolis, Indiana
46205, 317-639-3586 x.106, dcosterison@indiana-asbo.org
|