Dozens of Indiana public school superintendents anticipate cutting teaching and support staff in the coming years due to the financial impact of state property tax reform, according to a recent survey. The Indiana Coalition for Public Education (ICPE) found that nearly all responding superintendents foresee negative financial consequences from Senate Enrolled Act 1 (SEA 1), which enacted major property tax reforms. These anticipated cuts will affect school operations across the state.
The ICPE, a volunteer advocacy group, conducted its second annual survey on the financial outlook of Indiana schools, following the implementation of SEA 1. Sent to 290 superintendents statewide in August, the survey received 144 responses. A clear majority of superintendents also expressed concerns about universal school choice and the level of funding the General Assembly will provide to public schools next year.
Many districts are already acting to address budget shortfalls. Half of the superintendents who responded reported they have already cut support staff, while another 16% plan to do so soon, and 30% are actively considering it. Teaching roles are also being impacted, with 46% of superintendents stating they are eliminating some teaching positions. This figure rises to 93% when including districts that are considering or will soon take similar action.
Jim May, a volunteer with the ICPE, described the survey's findings as “more disheartening than surprising.” He noted that “very large numbers of schools reduce staff, both support staff and teaching staff,” leading to cuts in services and growing classroom sizes, particularly in rural areas.
To maintain current service levels expected by communities, schools would require one-time funding increases ranging from 1% to 25%, along with an average of 6% in ongoing increases thereafter, the report indicated.
Beyond staff reductions, districts are exploring other measures to manage finances. Nearly 40% of superintendents have issued or plan to issue a new general obligation bond, with many others considering this option. Further considerations include delaying maintenance projects, reducing staff raises, and cutting transportation services, electives, and field trips. Some rural districts are worried about consolidation or school closures, with one superintendent writing, “I feel like funding is bleeding the small schools dry.”
Despite 38 Indiana school districts seeking property tax referendums this fall—a record year for referendum questions on ballots statewide—fewer districts are pursuing this route than initially expected. Survey responses suggest that a lack of community support was a significant factor, cited by 39% of respondents. Rural districts, in particular, were more likely to cut staff than to pursue a referendum compared to urban and suburban areas. However, the survey indicates that more referendums could appear on ballots in 2028, the next available year for schools to do so.
Superintendents also shared frustrations regarding the state's funding priorities. One respondent emphasized that funding must keep pace with salary requirements, safety concerns, and increased utility and supply costs. Another highlighted the increased resources needed to educate students, noting that in their district, more than half of students do not have English as their native language.
The state’s move to universal access for private school vouchers, now available to all Hoosier families regardless of income, was a point of contention for several respondents. One superintendent reported being advised to eliminate $2.5 million from their district’s budget, expressing concerns that public schools were being defunded by the General Assembly. This superintendent further contended that the state’s majority party had created a “manufactured financial crisis” by prioritizing funding for voucher programs, charter schools, and statewide online platforms, thereby diverting significant funds from public education. Some superintendents suggested that private schools receiving publicly funded vouchers should be subject to the same accountability measures as public schools. One superintendent advocated for a “level playing field,” proposing that any law applying to public education should also apply to “any other school system that accepts state dollars,” and criticized the decision to prioritize funding private education for wealthy families.
In response to these financial pressures, some districts have implemented creative solutions. One superintendent mentioned planting prairie grass to save on mowing fuel costs, removing televisions to reduce electricity usage, and launching a student-run business to generate new income. However, these measures are often in conjunction with more substantial cuts.
