ILNews

Schools dropping school-funding lawsuit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The three Indiana school districts and parents who filed a lawsuit against the governor and other state officials over school funding are dropping the suit due to recent legislative action.

The plaintiffs announced Thursday morning that the suit is no longer necessary because of a new school-funding formula in the budget Gov. Mitch Daniels signed May 10. The legislation provides for a phased-in process over the next seven years to achieve uniform funding.

Hamilton Southeastern Schools in Hamilton County; Franklin Township Community School Corporation in Marion County; Middleburry Community Schools in Elkhart County; and parents of children filed the lawsuit in Hamilton County in February 2010 because they claimed the state’s non-uniform school-funding scheme has a negative impact on its students. The school districts said they received dramatically less funding than other school corporations and that the formula negatively affected schools with growing enrollments.

The case was before the Indiana Supreme Court pursuant to Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure 56(A).

“Lawmakers eliminated the deghoster and there is no restoration grant. These were the very things that were preventing uniformity across the state and were the focus of our case,” said plaintiffs attorney Patricia J. Whitten, who is with Franczek Radelet in Chicago.

A deghoster continued to provide funds to districts with declining enrollment for students who have moved to other districts, and the past funding formula allowed schools with declining enrollments to receive a restoration grant that provided supplemental dollars to prevent extreme losses all at once, Hamilton Southeastern Schools’ Chief Financial Officer Mike Reuter said in a statement.

Plaintiffs attorney Mike Hernandez of Franczek Radelet said the schools are in the process of withdrawing the complaint and are waiting for school boards to take final action before that process is complete.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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 Indiana Lawyer 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

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

  2. wow is this a bunch of bs! i know the facts!

  3. MCBA .... time for a new release about your entire membership (or is it just the alter ego) being "saddened and disappointed" in the failure to lynch a police officer protecting himself in the line of duty. But this time against Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation: "WASHINGTON — Justice Department lawyers will recommend that no civil rights charges be brought against the police officer who fatally shot an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Mo., after an F.B.I. investigation found no evidence to support charges, law enforcement officials said Wednesday." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/us/justice-department-ferguson-civil-rights-darren-wilson.html?ref=us&_r=0

  4. Dr wail asfour lives 3 hours from the hospital,where if he gets an emergency at least he needs three hours,while even if he is on call he should be in a location where it gives him max 10 minutes to be beside the patient,they get paid double on their on call days ,where look how they handle it,so if the death of the patient occurs on weekend and these doctors still repeat same pattern such issue should be raised,they should be closer to the patient.on other hand if all the death occured on the absence of the Dr and the nurses handle it,the nurses should get trained how to function appearntly they not that good,if the Dr lives 3 hours far from the hospital on his call days he should sleep in the hospital

  5. It's a capital offense...one for you Latin scholars..

ADVERTISEMENT