SB 251, which has passed the Senate, permits schools “to rent textbooks using an average fee for each student if the average is determined using the same total rental fees that would be charged under the per student method.”
Current law permits schools to rent the books at 25% of the purchase price of the book or 15% under some circumstances (I think if the book has already been paid for.) This law would allow an averaging of the 25% fees with the 15% fees – I suppose if you had a mix of paid for and unpaid for books?
Since the Indiana Supreme Court has declined to find that textbook rental fees violate the state Constitution’s prohibition on tuition, I expect textbook fees are a revenue source that cash starved schools will want to go back to more and more often.
Textbook rental fees only profit the publishers of textbooks, IMO. This is one of the biggest hidden costs of education (at any level), and we don’t really even get our money’s worth because it is knowledge written by committee, edited by committee and purchased by committee.
The state is supposed to re-imburse 100%, most often, they only reimburse about 70%, sometimes less. The school has to make up the remaining cost. Most often, those complaining about excessive textbook rental fees are complaining about all the user fees the school corps include with that rental statement. This year, due to the extra budget cuts mitch made, they will also have to include fees for transportation, janitorial services, athletics and such.
Schools also are free to choose which textbooks and supplementary materials to purchase, as long as the material is on the state approved list, and it is hard not to be on that list. Publishers are making outrageous profits on these books.
The bill is typical of our legislature–makes no sense and is probably targeted at a specific school.
canoefun is right when he said this: The bill is typical of our legislature–makes no sense and is probably targeted at a specific school.
A school/or small group of schools in Kenley’s district got an audit exception for using the method Kenley is now adding to the acceptable methods via this bill.
Also, textbook rental and the related class fees are by no means a profit center.
Canoefun – I believe the partial state reimbursements were just for students on free/reduced lunch who do not pay the fees.
Lori, you are right, but I am not sure how that matters.
The state average for free/reduced lunch is 45%. or ~480,000 kids. So they state is not paying 30% of the cost to provide books to those kids or ~$240,000,000. This assumes $150/kid book rental. Go online and calculate the cost to your local school. My local is small and has 28% free/reduced, so the hit is ~$19,000. Of course that $19,000 is the cost of 1.5 instructional aides that they can’t hire to make up the shortfall.
The same thing happens for full-day kindergarten, summer school and many other programs where the state “reimburses” a school’s cost to provide a program, theoretically at 100%.
In the end, it is just another way the state budget is balanced on the back of local government.
Thanks Paddy,
It is nice when others take the lead and do the math. This under reimbursement has been going on for a long time. Of course, part of the problem is that local schools will replace textbooks just because it is time in the cycle to do so. Math, chemistry, biology, most government and history books, much of the English curricula, and other textbooks probably do not need to be replaced with updated new books every 6 years. The subject matters does not change. Any pertinent breaking information could be found and copied from the internet.
But as Paddy said, it is just one more burden the state passes down to the locals, and then makes a platform out of blaming the locals for raising taxes to cover the extra costs. mitch wants this to end, when he mandates from on high his wisdom, everyone will follow without means to contradict or argue. No local control, only state control–is he for total federal control then?
I live the school funding math everyday.
I do know of a number of schools not updating their textbooks, but it is a small group right now. I also see more schools going to classroom sets and teacher generated curriculum. These things along with more use of technology and less rote memorization will lessen the need for traditional textbooks over time.
I hope everyday for just enough student count increase to bring in more revenue, but not so much growth that I need to add teachers. For example, I could add 100 kids, if they were spread just right across the grade levels, and not add one teacher. That is worth $580,000 in revenue with a negligible increase in expense and would solve my “bad economy shortfall” that was imposed in January.
Revenue streams based solely on student counts will vastly alter the landscape of education in our state and most people will never notice.
Paddy – You are right, it doesn’t make a difference in terms of unfunded/underfunded mandates, but I didn’t want those folks who are paying textbook rentals to be under the mistaken impression that their local schools are also getting textbook money form the state.
Lori, the schools are getting textbook money from the state, for free and reduced lunch kids, and for some technology materials that could be considered textbook/materials. And much of that textbook rental fee statement, unless broken down by item, is for things other than textbook rentals (gym, pool, lab, computer, athletics, etc).
Some schools charge a bit more to make up for the lack of reimbursement for free and reduced lunch kids, who still pay a fee, just not the whole fee.
Paddy, remember how much you save when your schools loses 100 kids across the grades–less money but still need the same amount of teachers etc. Revenue goes down, costs remain the same (without inflation).
The charge for textbook rental is $150.00 for a few books. I can buy a Kindle for my child for $80.00 and download 35,000 books onto it. No more backpacks. What’s up?