Bill forcing schools to share property taxes with charters passes. But 40% of senators voted no
Senate Bill 518 passed the Senate by a 28-21 vote, with 12 Republicans joining nine Democrats to vote against it over concerns that it would dilute funding for traditional public schools. The bill will now move to the House in the second half of the legislative session where it will face another round of committee hearings, amendments and votes.
The somewhat narrow vote margin signals it could face an uphill battle on its way to becoming law. The Senate passed the bill on Thursday after nearly two hours of discussion that sometimes was tense.
Opponents of the bill have raised alarms that public school districts across the state will be harmed by the bill, some to the tune of millions of dollars. Indianapolis Public Schools, for example, has said that it could be forced to close 20 schools and lay off staff. A fiscal analysis of the legislation predicts public schools could have to divert $10.4 million to charter schools in 2028.
Sen. Fady Qaddoura, D-Indianapolis, said Republicans in the Senate have "drilled into our minds" recently that lawmakers need to be fiscally responsible due to a tight budget year.
"If this body is truly about choice, then why (does) choice have to come at the expense of the choice of a million people going to traditional schools? Can choice only be accepted if it's at the expense of somebody else?" Qaddoura said.
But the bill has been supported by many Indiana charter schools and school choice proponents who argue that parents who send their kids to charter schools deserve to benefit from their property tax dollars.
The bill's author, Sen. Linda Rogers, R-Granger, said public tax dollars "should be following the child" regardless of whether they go to traditional public or charter schools. It's the same principle Republican leaders have preached when it comes to how to divvy state dollars for education, too.
"We need to also think about the parents that are choosing to send their child to a different school, to a charter school," Rogers said. "Those tax dollars, for years, have not followed their children. Today we need to make that change."
Sen. Chris Garten, R-Charlestown, added that districts like IPS shouldn't retain 100% of property tax revenue when so many kids who live in the district are choosing to attend charter schools instead.
"When we talk about equity in education funding, ask yourself this, 'Is that equitable?'" Garton said. "Why do those kids matter less in the education system? Why should we fund those kids less? Because that's the system currently."
Democrats in the Senate, who have just 10 seats out of 40, tried to change the bill earlier this week but all of their 18 proposed amendments failed to pass muster with Republicans. The only amendment that was approved this week was a Republican proposal to delay the bill's implementation until 2028.
Still, the vote on the bill Thursday split Republicans, too.
Sen. Mike Bohacek, R-Michiana Shores, said charter schools that don't provide bus service shouldn't get property tax dollars, which are supposed to, in part, fund transportation. That money should be returned to taxpayers instead, he said.
"If they're not providing the service, they don't have the liability," Bohacek said. "Why are we giving them 100% of the levy if we know that half of that is for bus service?"
Sen. Jean Leising, R-Oldenburg, had a different reason for opposing the bill: the one charter school in her district isn't included. The bill only applies to districts that sends 100 or more kids to charter schools.
"They really don't understand why they can't be included because their students come from seven different public school (districts)," Leising said. "They cannot participate in this program."
There's a philosophical difference at play in the debate. While opponents said public school districts would lose money, supporters said those districts shouldn't be getting that revenue in the first place.
Sen. Shelli Yoder, D-Bloomington, said on Thursday that she was opposed to the bill because it dilutes public education funding, and public schools educate the vast majority of Indiana kids.
Yoder said the state should fund charter schools in their "own right, without raiding the public property tax dollars."
Rogers, on the other hand, said those traditional public schools are "receiving money for students they are not educating."
Senate President Pro Tempore Rodric Bray said he wasn't surprised to see that several members of his caucus voted against the proposal.
There's a lot of uncertainty right now about property taxes given the tax relief measures in Senate Bill 1, which would also impact schools, he said.
"It's a contentious issue, so I didn't expect it to be 100% at all," Bray said. "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."
Contact IndyStar state government and politics reporter Brittany Carloni at brittany.carloni@indystar.com. Follow her on Twitter/X @CarloniBrittany.
Contact senior government accountability reporter Hayleigh Colombo at hcolombo@indystar.com. Follow her on Twitter/X @hayleighcolombo.
This article originally appeared on Indianapolis Star: Bill to share property tax money with charters passes Senate
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
American Press
23 minutes ago
- American Press
Trump administration cancels plans to develop new offshore wind projects
The Trump administration is canceling plans to use large areas of federal waters for new offshore wind development, the latest step to suppress the industry in the United States. More than 3.5 million acres had been designated wind energy areas, the offshore locations deemed most suitable for wind energy development. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management is now rescinding all designated wind energy areas in federal waters, announcing on Wednesday an end to setting aside large areas for 'speculative wind development.' Offshore wind lease sales were anticipated off the coasts of Texas, Louisiana, Maine, New York, California and Oregon, as well as in the central Atlantic. The Biden administration last year had announced a five-year schedule to lease federal offshore tracts for wind energy production. Trump began reversing the country's energy policies after taking office in January. A series of executive orders took aim at increasing oil, gas and coal production. The Republican president has been hostile to renewable energy, particularly offshore wind. One early executive order temporarily halted offshore wind lease sales in federal waters and paused the issuance of approvals, permits and loans for all wind projects. In trying to make a case against wind energy, he has relied on false and misleading claims about the use of wind power in the U.S. and around the world. The bureau said it was acting in accordance with Trump's action and an order by his interior secretary this week to end any preferential treatment toward wind and solar facilities, which were described as unreliable, foreign-controlled energy sources. Robin Shaffer, president of Protect Our Coast New Jersey, applauded the administration for its actions and said they were long overdue. Opponents of offshore wind projects are particularly vocal and well-organized in New Jersey. 'It's hard to believe these projects ever got this far because of the immensity, scale, scope and expense, compared to relatively cheap and reliable forms of onshore power,' he said Thursday. 'We're nearly there, but we haven't reached the finish line yet.' Attorneys general from 17 states and the District of Columbia are suing in federal court to challenge Trump's executive order halting leasing and permitting for wind energy projects. His administration had also halted work on a major offshore wind project for New York, but allowed it to resume in May. The nation's first commercial-scale offshore wind farm, a 12-turbine wind farm called South Fork, opened last year east of Montauk Point, New York.
The Hill
23 minutes ago
- The Hill
The Latest: US inflation ticked higher last month, as Trump's latest tariff deadline nears
A key U.S. inflation gauge rose last month, in a sign that President Donald Trump's broad-based tariffs are starting to lift prices for many goods. Prices rose 2.6% in June compared with a year ago, the Commerce Department said on Thursday, up from an annual pace of 2.4% in May. Excluding the volatile food and energy categories, prices rose 2.8% in the past year, the same as the previous month, which was revised higher. Meanwhile, Trump has announced a flurry of trade activity ahead of his latest deadline Friday to impose even steeper import taxes on goods coming from countries around the world. A handful of trade deals have trickled in — most recently with South Korea and Pakistan — but many details remain hazy. Thorny negotiations for most trading partners remain up in the air. And, while Trump may have gotten his way with tariffs on some countries, his overhaul of American trade policy still faces a challenge in federal court. Here's the Latest: Trump lashes out at India for its relationship with Russia The U.S. president on Truth Social suggested that he plans to do as little trade as possible with India and Russia. 'I don't care what India does with Russia,' Trump posted. 'They can take their dead economies down together, for all I care. We have done very little business with India, their Tariffs are too high, among the highest in the World. Likewise, Russia and the USA do almost no business together. Let's keep it that way.' Trump announced on Wednesday 25% tariffs on goods from India and additional penalties for India's reliance on Russia for oil and military equipment. Trump also issued a warning to Dmitry Medvedev, the former Russian president, saying that he should 'watch his words' and that he's 'entering very dangerous territory!' Trump is using Canada's recognition of the Palestinian state in trade talks Trump said Canada's announcement it will recognize a Palestinian state 'will make it very hard' for the U.S. to reach a trade agreement with its northern neighbor. The threat posted in the early hours Thursday on Trump's social media network is the latest way he has sought to use his trade war to coerce countries on unrelated issues and is a swing from the ambivalence he has expressed about other countries making such a move. 'Wow! Canada has just announced that it is backing statehood for Palestine,' Trump said in his post on Truth Social just past midnight. 'That will make it very hard for us to make a Trade Deal with them. Oh' Canada!!!' The Republican president said this week that he didn't mind British Prime Minister Keir Starmer taking a position on the issue of formally recognizing Palestinian statehood. And last week, he said that French President Emmanuel Macron's similar move was 'not going to change anything.' ▶ Read more about Trump's trade talks with Canada. US and Pakistan announce trade agreement The U.S. and Pakistan reached a trade agreement expected to allow Washington to help develop Pakistan's largely untapped oil reserves and lower tariffs for the South Asian country, officials from both nations said Thursday. 'We have just concluded a deal with the country of Pakistan, whereby Pakistan and the United States will work together on developing their massive oil reserves,' Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform. 'We are in the process of choosing the oil company that will lead this partnership.' Pakistan's Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif welcomed the 'long-awaited' deal and thanked Trump for playing a key role in finalizing it. Pakistan's Finance Ministry said in a statement early Thursday the agreement aims to boost bilateral trade, expand market access, attract investment and foster cooperation in areas of mutual interest. The deal includes a reduction in reciprocal tariffs, particularly on Pakistani exports to the U.S., the statement from the ministry said. A new figure wasn't immediately provided. ▶ Read more about the Pakistan's trade agreement with the U.S. Trump and his tariffs still face a challenge in federal court Trump may have gotten his way with tariffs on some countries, but his overhaul of American trade policy has not gone unchallenged. In May, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade agreed that Trump exceeded his powers when he declared a national emergency to plaster tariffs on imports from almost every country in the world. Now, on Thursday, the 11 judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, which typically specializes in patent law, are scheduled to hear oral arguments from the Trump administration and from the states and businesses that want his sweeping import taxes struck down. That court earlier allowed the federal government to continue collecting Trump's tariffs as the case works its way through the judicial system. The issues are so weighty — involving the president's power to bypass Congress and impose taxes with huge economic consequences in the United States and abroad — that the case is widely expected to reach the U.S. Supreme Court, regardless of what the appeals court decides. ▶ Read more about the challenge in federal court. Indian government assesses the impact of the US's coming tariffs India's Trade Minister Piyush Goyal on Thursday said the Indian government is in talks with exporters, industries and other stakeholders to assess the impact of 25% import tariff imposed by the U.S. on Indian goods. In a statement to the parliament, Goyal said the government will take all necessary steps to secure and advance the national interest. The minister said India has in the past decade transformed from being one of the fragile fives to the fastest growing major economy in the world. Goyal's comments were seen in contrast to Trump's social media post early Thursday wherein he slammed India and Russia, saying 'they can take their dead economies down together.' India relies heavily on imported crude oil, particularly from Russia India is currently the third biggest importer of oil after China and the United States, depending heavily on imported crude oil. Over 80% of India's crude oil is imported. Russia is the biggest supplier to India — followed by Iraq, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and the United States. Earlier this month, the country's crude processors were hit by the EU's sanctions on Indian diesel imports made from Russian oil, with Nayara Energy, an Indo-Russian oil refining and marketing company specifically targeted with penalties. 'Whether India will stop importing from Russia, depends on what the penalty is. The country will weigh its options before deciding,' said Sangeeta Godbole, a former trade negotiator with three decades of experience in the Indian government. Godbole said the vagueness of the penalty threat issued by the U.S. might be deliberate. 'It's all so fluid right now. According to me, the only people we can turn to are the Middle-East countries but they are part of the OPEC+ just like Russia,' she added. Top Indian business association expresses disappointment with 25% tariff rate The Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry said it was disappointed with the imposition of 25% import tariffs and an additional penalty on Indian goods by the U.S. The 'move is unfortunate and will have a clear bearing on our exports,' said Harsha Vardhan Agarwal, president of the industry body. Agarwal hoped the higher tariffs will be short-lived and the two countries finalize a bilateral trade agreement soon. 'India and U.S. have a long-standing partnership, which is strengthened by our deepening engagement across an array of areas from technology to defense to energy and advance manufacturing. There is a lot our two countries can achieve together,' Agarwal said in a statement late Wednesday. US-South Korea trade deal includes $150 billion shipbuilding investment A top South Korean official says the $350 billion investment fund announced earlier by Trump includes $150 billion for cooperation on the shipbuilding industry. Kim Yong-beom, the presidential chief of staff for policy, told reporters in Seoul on Thursday that the $150 billion fund is 'the most noteworthy' part of the deal, saying it covers cooperation on all major parts of the shipbuilding industry such as constructions, maintenances, repairs and overhauls of vessels. He says South Korean companies have world-class shipbuilding capabilities and U.S. companies hold strengths in software sectors. South Korean president hails trade deal with the US South Korea's president hailed the trade deal announced by Trump Thursday, saying it would serve as a chance to further strengthen economic cooperation and military alliance with the United States. In a Facebook post, Lee Jae Myung said the $350 billion investment fund is meant to solidify a foundation for bilateral cooperation on strategic industries. The fund will play a role of supporting the entrance to the U.S. market by South Korean companies in areas where they excel such as shipbuilding, semiconductors, secondary batteries, biotechnology and energy. Lee also said the deal would remove uncertainty surrounding South Korea's export environment as the U.S. 15% tariff for goods from South Korea is a lower or similar figure facing other major trade competitors. 'The government was only engaged in negotiations by placing a top priority on national interests,' Lee said. 'It's important to pull out a mutually beneficial agreement, rather than seeking unilateral benefits.'
The Hill
23 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump's first-term space policy was great, but now he's dropping the ball
The first Trump administration was the best for space policy in decades. From the creation of the Space Force to pathbreaking international agreements such as the Artemis Accords to stronger protections for outer space property rights, America reasserted itself as the world's premier space power. None of this would have been possible without a team of space policy experts and political leaders in key roles. But this time is different. Many important space policy and leadership positions remain vacant. Qualified personnel have been nominated, but the Senate has yet to act. Nor has President Trump chosen to force the issue. Personnel is policy, as the saying goes — and there is a real risk that a policy of passivity will undermine the gains America has made in space. Holdups at NASA are case in point. Jared Isaacman, the president's first nominee to lead the space agency, was a promising pick. But Trump withdrew his nomination in May over political concerns, namely Isaacman's ties to Elon Musk and past support for certain Democrats. After Janet Petro, previously the head of the Kennedy Space Center, served as interim administrator for six months, Trump named Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy as acting head. Duffy is talented, but NASA needs dedicated leadership to avoid strategic blunders. Other needless vacancies are stalling the national space agenda. Matthew Anderson, the nominee for NASA's deputy administrator, and Greg Autry, nominee for NASA's chief financial officer, are both major figures in the space industry. Both await Senate confirmation. The Trump administration would be within its rights to make its displeasure known over these holdups. But it seems the president has other priorities. Other agencies with space policy portfolios are suffering, too. The Office of Space Commerce, within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, lacks a political appointee to take charge of important space traffic management and policy coordination projects. Combined with staff reductions and funding cuts, there is widespread uncertainty within the government about whether the administration is committed to strengthening America's commercial space capabilities. The list goes on. Marc Berkowitz, a notable shaper of space and security policy who was nominated as assistant secretary of Defense, does not have a date scheduled for his confirmation hearing. The State Department has no political appointee responsible for space policy. Despite assurances from the administration that it will soon make a comeback, the National Space Council is nowhere to be seen. This is a missed opportunity. The status quo at various federal agencies is often secure enough that policy initiatives can survive, and even thrive, during leadership vacancies. That is not the case with space policy. Widespread uncertainty, looming budget and career staff shortfalls, and developments abroad — including those concerning America's grand-strategic rivals, Russia and China — could derail long-term national space goals if the president and his closest advisors do not change course. It does not have to be this way. From his first administration, Trump is undoubtedly aware how important it is to get key political appointees in place to ensure accountability and to harmonize policy with his goals. The Republican Party already has a bold agenda for solidifying America's position in the celestial high ground. The space policies created in the first Trump administration remain in place. What is lacking is a team to faithfully and energetically implement those policies. With a dedicated effort of presidential will, Trump can jolt the nation's space enterprises back into high gear. Trump should immediately reactivate the National Space Council and lean on the Senate to confirm his space policy nominees. He should also involve Vice President JD Vance, whose commitments to revitalizing American manufacturing fit with the strategic need to strengthen the defense industrial base and the space industrial base in particular. Every day that key positions remain unfilled presents hostile nations an opportunity to undercut the U.S. and assert control over space. Space is no longer a peripheral policy area. The space economy, already worth several hundred billion, is projected to grow to a staggering $1.8 trillion by 2035. Our daily lives, from weather forecasts to financial networks, depend on satellites and other space-reliant infrastructure that must be protected. The U.S. faces new threats from China and Russia that require space-enabled defenses, such as the Golden Dome missile system. All of this necessitates filling critical space policy positions. Continued vacancies threaten our economic wellbeing and physical safety. The Trump administration must get serious about space policy personnel — just like it was the first time around. Alexander William Salter is the Georgie G. Snyder Associate Professor of Economics at the Rawls College of Business at Texas Tech University and a research fellow at TTU's Free Market Institute. He holds fellowships with the Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. and the American Institute for Economic Research in Great Barrington, Mass.
