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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT