Who Is In Charge

Indiana Supreme Court says schools can cut busing

PHOTO: Alan Petersime

When her district faced an $18 million loss in tax dollars in 2011-12, Franklin Township Superintendent Flora Reichanadter had to make a difficult decision: Eliminate funding for the district’s busing or cut teachers and classroom resources?

She went with the former, which prompted a lawsuit and three-year debate about whether Indiana students have a constitutional right to ride a bus to school.

Today the Indiana Supreme Court gave its answer: The state constitution does not require school districts to offer busing. That could clear the way for other cash-strapped schools to tell kids to find their own rides to school.

Franklin Township actually reinstated busing in 2012, but Reichanadter said the court’s ruling justified the hard decision she said she made to keep teachers while parking the district’s buses.

“It’s really just an affirmation that what we did at the time was the best we could do with the finances we had at the time,” Reichanadter said.

Jeff Butts, superintendent in Wayne Township and treasurer for the Indiana Association of Public School Superintendents, said the Supreme Court’s ruling, which overturned a lower court decision, gives other districts across the state a lot to think about when money gets tight.

“It’s a big win for the school district,” Butts said. “We are happy for them. We know that it created controversy in their community and it created some strife, but I’m happy for Franklin Township, and I think this is something that every school district is now going to have to take a look at.”

In the midst of the 2011 budget squeeze, Reichanadter said Franklin’s school board was adamant that it would not cut teaching jobs or academic programs.

“Rather than take the money out of the general fund, which is paid for at the state level, we chose at that time to eliminate transportation,” Reichanadter said. “If we wouldn’t have eliminated transportation, we would have had to eliminate staff, and at the time our board did not want to impact the classroom.”

The district shortfall had two causes, she said: caps on property taxes passed by the legislature in 2010, which cost the district about $18 million per year, and a failed referendum. Voters did not approve a request to increase their property taxes to give the district more money.

The tax caps were put into place as an effort to make property taxes, which sometimes shifted up or down unexpectedly for homeowners when their home values changed, more stable. Most school district spending today comes from state sales and income tax and is doled out by the legislature. Schools can use property taxes to pay down debt for school buildings, support building maintenance and fund busing.

Tax caps effectively stabilized tax bills for homeowners and businesses, but put some school districts that were paying down debt in a tough spot.

Reichanadter said Franklin Township was hit especially hard by the tax caps, as 94 percent of the township’s property taxes come from homeowners, who are taxed at a lower rate than businesses and farmers. School districts with more businesses and fewer residences generally raise more property tax money.

As budgets became tight, hard decisions had to be made, she said.

“It became really, for us, about survival,” Reichanadter said. “It was necessary. We literally did not have the funds.”

But some parents were furious. Schools became mired in traffic jams of parents dropping kids off. When the district cut a deal for an outside bus company to offer rides to school that parents had to pay for, a group of them filed a lawsuit.

The suit demanded reimbursement for families who were driving their own children to school and refunds of the busing fee the company charged for families that used that service. The Supreme Court’s ruling said that parents could not get a refund because schools are not constitutionally required to provide busing. It also said schools can’t charge a a separate fee for bus service.

By 2012 the district was able to refinance some of its debt, lowering its interest payments. That freed up money it used to restore bus service after just one year without it. Although the district is busing kids now, it might not always be able to do so, Reichanadter said, because of changes to how the state is funding schools and because the tax caps don’t seem to be going anywhere.

Under the budget proposed by the Indiana House, Franklin Township gets just $16 more per student, or about $137,000 per year, she said.

“This decision just barely scratches at the surface of funding public education because we still continue to struggle with the tax caps,” Reichanadter said.  “That’s not going to help my transportation fund that runs on $4 million to $5 million.”

Butts said Wayne Township is facing a funding shortfall, too. If it can’t close its $8 million gap with a referendum to voters this spring, reducing bus service could be on the table. Wayne currently offers free busing to all its students, as many schools aren’t in neighborhoods with sidewalks or safe walking zones. But that $8.8 million transportation budget, or part of it, could also be useful elsewhere, Butts said.

“If you don’t have safe walking routes to and from school, then you also create a safety issue for your children,” Butts said. “But the reality is you have to find a way to fund all the different pieces, and when you have a reduced revenue stream, you also have to find a way to make sure you are providing all the services that are essential to the classroom.”

Who Is In Charge

Indianapolis Public Schools board gives superintendent Ferebee raise, bonus

PHOTO: Dylan Peers McCoy
Lewis Ferebee

Indianapolis Public Schools Superintendent Lewis Ferebee is getting a $4,701 raise and a bonus of $28,000.

The board voted unanimously to approve both. The raise is a 2.24 percent salary increase. It is retroactive to July 1, 2017. Ferebee’s total pay this year, including the bonus, retirement contributions and a stipend for a car, will be $286,769. Even though the bonus was paid this year, it is based on his performance last school year.

The board approved a new contract Tuesday that includes a raise for teachers.

The bonus is 80 percent of the total — $35,000 — he could have received under his contract. It is based on goals agreed to by the superintendent and the board.

These are performance criteria used to determine the superintendent’s bonus are below:

Student recruitment

How common is it for districts to share student contact info with charter schools? Here’s what we know.

PHOTO: Laura Faith Kebede
Staff members of Green Dot Public Schools canvass a neighborhood near Kirby Middle School in the summer of 2016 before reopening the Memphis school as a charter.

As charter schools emerge alongside local school districts across the nation, student addresses have become a key turf war.

Charter schools have succeeded in filling their classes with and without access to student contact information. But their operators frequently argue that they have a right to such information, which they say is vital to their recruitment efforts and gives families equal access to different schools in their area.

Disputes are underway right now in at least two places: In Tennessee, school boards in Nashville and Memphis are defying a new state law that requires districts to hand over such information to charters that request it. A New York City parent recently filed a formal complaint accusing the city of sharing her information improperly with local charter schools.

How do other cities handle the issue? According to officials from a range of school districts, some share student information freely with charters while others guard it fiercely.

Some districts explicitly do not share student information with charter schools. This includes Detroit, where the schools chief is waging an open war with the charter sector for students; Washington, D.C., where the two school sectors coexist more peacefully; and Los Angeles.

Others have clear rules for student information sharing. Denver, for example, set parameters for what information the district will hand over to charter schools in a formal collaboration agreement — one that Memphis officials frequently cite as a model for one they are creating. Baltimore and Boston also share information, although Boston gives out only some of the personal details that district schools can access.

At least one city has carved out a compromise. In New York City, a third-party company provides mass mailings for charter schools, using contact information provided by the school district. Charter schools do not actually see that information and cannot use it for other purposes — although the provision hasn’t eliminated parent concerns about student privacy and fair recruitment practices there.

In Tennessee, the fight by the state’s two largest districts over the issue is nearing a boiling point. The state education department has already asked a judge to intervene in Nashville and is mulling whether to add the Memphis district to the court filing after the school board there voted to defy the state’s order to share information last month. Nashville’s court hearing is Nov. 28.

The conflict feels high-stakes to some. In Memphis, both local and state districts struggle with enrolling enough students. Most schools in the state-run Achievement School District have lost enrollment this year, and the local district, Shelby County Schools, saw a slight increase in enrollment this year after years of freefall.

Still, some charter leaders wonder why schools can’t get along without the information. One Memphis charter operator said his school fills its classes through word of mouth, Facebook ads, and signs in surrounding neighborhoods.

“We’re fully enrolled just through that,” said the leader, who spoke on condition of anonymity to protect his relationship with the state and local districts. “It’s a non-argument for me.”

A spokeswoman for Green Dot Public Schools, the state-managed charter school whose request for student information started the legal fight in Memphis, said schools in the Achievement School District should receive student contact information because they are supposed to serve students within specific neighborhood boundaries.

“At the end of the day, parents should have the information they need to go to their neighborhood school,” said the spokeswoman, Cynara Lilly. “They deserve to know it’s open.”