Key Takeaways: A work session was held to discuss student transfer practices in our school district with an enrollment trends and transfer policy slide presentation. It began with a review of legislative changes that will decrease the funding our school district receives for each transfer student, including an end to the practice of charging transfer tuition to families. Several options for how to adjust in response to the cut in funding were outlined, with discussion on the financial and programmatic impacts. Board members emphasized the importance of seeking community input before making a decision. There was a debate among board members as to whether it was appropriate to consider how property values in our school district would be affected by an increase in the number of transfer students.
Topic Timestamps: YouTube Recording
- 0:26 Impact of Legislative Change on Transfer Funding
- 2:34 Enrollment Trends
- 5:24 Transfer Enrollment Process
- 6:15 Enrollment, Transfers, and Capacity
- 7:51 Transfer Policy Options
- 18:24 Community Input Requested
- 33:15 Should Property Values Influence School Board Decisions:
- 46:46 Communication from the Audience
The following is my summary of the public school board meeting, not the official meeting minutes. My personal thoughts and opinions are given in italics and represent my own views which do not necessarily reflect those of any other member of the school board. I identify myself as Mumford in the summary but use first person when describing my personal thoughts and opinions.
0:26 – Impact of Legislative Change on Transfer Funding (Slide 2): Greiner began by noting a key legislative change: House Enrollment Act 1002 now prohibits charging additional transfer fees. As a result, our school district can no longer collect transfer tuition from TSC families, though the district will continue to invoice TSC for the basic state funding amount for each transfer student. This is a costly legislative change to our district. Greiner said that he projects a revenue loss in the 2025-2026 school year of about $500,000 for our district (1:55:52 June 2025).
TSC receives approximately $150 more in state funding for each student than WLCSC would receive for those same students if they were to enroll directly. Greiner has not yet clarified if our district will receive the full difference in state funding for TSC transfer students or if TSC keeps part of that funding ($150 x 170 transfer students = $25,500 in total for this year).
If our district were to instead use the state’s open transfer policy, this would allow students from any school district to apply to transfer to our district. If there are more applicants than our pre-determined capacity, a lottery would be used to determine which applicants to accept. However, we would only receive the basic $7,200 in state funding for each transfer student and would not receive any differential from the other school districts with higher state-funding amounts. While such a change would make the process more open and equitable, it would come with a small financial cost. My understanding is that TSC is the only school district willing to use the current informal transfer process with our district.
2:34 – Enrollment Trends (Slide 3): Greiner explained that initial concerns he raised in June about the potential end of the TSC partnership have since subsided, as TSC remains committed to continuing the relationship. He presented data showing a decline in in-district enrollment from 2019 to 2025, with a decrease of approximately 160 students. The kindergarten class entering in 2024–25 was notably small, and preliminary numbers indicate a similar trend for the upcoming year. This decline has been partially offset by a steady increase in transfer students. The increase in transfer enrollment has helped maintain funding for teacher and staff salaries. It makes sense that our enrollment has declined as our practice of accepting nearly all transfer applicants has become commonly known. Knowing that their children will almost certainly be allowed to transfer into our schools has influenced some families to choose to live outside the district boundaries.
5:24 – Transfer Enrollment Process (Slide 5):The currently used transfer process begins with TSC’s superintendent approving transfer applications, which are then reviewed by West Lafayette based on capacity, discipline, and attendance. Priority applications are due by April 1, with decisions typically communicated by late June or early July. However, applications may continue to be accepted throughout the summer until either the TSC or WLCSC superintendent decides to close the transfer window. Witt asked who typically initiates the closure and what factors influence that decision. Greiner responded that TSC generally initiates the closure, citing clerical and administrative needs, such as preparing staffing and schedules for the upcoming school year, as the primary reasons. Lyle asked whether TSC had indicated a willingness to continue the agreement long term. Greiner said TSC has committed to this year only, and there is no long-term decision in place. This current practice allows superintendents to pick and choose which transfer students to accept.
6:15 – Enrollment, Transfers, and Capacity (Slide 6): Greiner said that the district has the space to accommodate up to 2,500 students. Current enrollment is around 2,300. He said that maintaining this level allows for quality and consistent programming. There are cultural and educational benefits of a smaller school district, based on his previous experience in a large district. There does not seem to be anything in place to ensure that administrators do not exceed capacity limits. For example, we currently have 209 students in the 7th grade (the slide shows the capacity is 200). The slide also reports the target average class size in each grade. At the elementary school the targets are 22 students per class in K and 1st and 23 students per class in 2nd and 3rd. This is much higher than what my older children experienced. From 2001 – 2012, the elementary school had an average of just 18 students per class. The slide says that 4th and 5th grades at the intermediate school have a target class size of 24 and for 6th grade the target is 25. These are large class sizes for these grades. There is typically an influx of new students (from homeschool or private school) into 7th grade, so targeting 200 students in 6th grade makes it likely that this capacity will be exceeded in 7th grade. At the JSHS, the target average across all classes is 25. I think the administrators should also establish a maximum class size for core subjects at the JSHS. Last year, some of the core classes had as many as 39 students in the classroom.
7:51 – Transfer Policy Options (Slide 8): Greiner shared a range of potential transfer policy options in response to board member requests. These included maintaining the current arrangement, expanding transfers beyond TSC through a lottery system, closing by not accepting any new transfer students, or completely shutting out current and future transfer students. Having no transfer students would result in an estimated $1.2 million revenue loss ($7,200 x 170 transfer students), which would likely require asking the voters to approve an earlier and more substantial referendum in order to recover. If the district were to open up to transfer students from other districts, the transfer process would begin internally, and the district would receive funding directly from the state. For now, Greiner recommended continuing the existing TSC arrangement and conducting annual trend reviews during financial planning discussions. He concluded by stating that no changes will be made unless directed by a board vote.
Purpura advocated for a formal written agreement with TSC to avoid last-minute surprises. Austin said she likes the open enrollment system because it uses a lottery process for transfers. She expressed concern that the current approach may allow for selective admissions, particularly favoring athletes or high-performing students. Under the current agreement with TSC, that decision-making authority rests with administrators. Yin said she preferred the middle option of a progressive closing, keeping all our current transfer students while not admitting new transfer students, as this would give the district more time to evaluate how in-district enrollment rates respond and what impact they have on programming. She said that enrollment is not static but dynamic, and more families will likely move into the district if we were to adopt a policy of not accepting new transfer students. She emphasized that children of teachers should always be allowed to attend our schools tuition-free.
18:24 – Community Input Requested: Mumford asked how this information would be communicated and when listening sessions could be scheduled to allow for community feedback. Greiner said that because no changes are currently being recommended, decisions about listening sessions would be up to the board. Austin added that future work sessions could be scheduled depending on community interest and said that this work session already meets that need. Mumford noted that this work session was scheduled during the beginning of the school year open houses and that many families felt that this timing discouraged public input. She asked that the board schedule a future meeting to give community members the opportunity to provide feedback before any decisions are made. Austin said that community members can come speak at any upcoming school board meeting. Community members should not be expected to search the school website and should instead be sent information about important school decisions. For an issue this important, the community deserves to be fully informed and given clear answers to their questions, followed by a scheduled meeting specifically designed for feedback. Only scheduling listening sessions if pushed to do so by the community is not good leadership. Our community has never been asked to give input on our transfer student practices, nor do we have an official transfer policy. Given the limited information shared so far and the absence of scheduled listening sessions, I encourage community members to email the school board and administrators to request more information, for that information to be widely shared (not just posted on the website), for listening sessions to be scheduled, and to provide input on our transfer practices. Emails sent to schoolboardmembers@wl.k12.in.us go to all board members as well as the superintendent.
Witt responded that this meeting was scheduled in order to finalize teacher hiring before the first day of school and the overlap with the school open houses was not intended to limit participation. Mumford said that if the goal is to show the community that their feedback is genuinely valued, then the board should be mindful of scheduling conflicts. She added that this meeting was not only focused on approving new hires but also included several significant topics.
Witt asked Greiner to explain what the term “right sizing” means in practice and how eliminating transfer students would affect staff and programming. She said that many in the community may not understand that losing $1.2 million could require reductions in programming such as art, music, physical education, and advanced coursework. Greiner acknowledged that maintaining current enrollment levels through transfers supports program stability and competitive wages. He said if that funding were lost, the district would have to determine which areas to cut, and stakeholder input would be essential. He emphasized that while the finance team could balance any budget, it might require difficult decisions that would impact the overall student experience.
Yin advocated for great community outreach and noted that the timing of this meeting was not ideal. She compared the importance of public engagement on this issue to the extensive efforts made during referendum campaigns.
33:15 – Should Property Values Influence School Board Decisions: Purpura argued it was unethical for the board to consider potential impacts on property values when making the decision on our transfer student policy. Witt responded that she fully agreed with Purpura and noted that she plans to sell her house within the next year. Yin disagreed, stating that policies that would result in lower property values directly reduce school district property tax revenue. She said that she is not aware of any law that forbids considering property values. She pointed to community fears surrounding SK’s arrival and the local housing market’s apparent decline, suggesting that closing the district to transfers could increase demand for homes within the district and increase property values. I am not sure why Purpura and Witt are trying to limit this discussion. Dismissing or shaming people for sharing their concerns about a policy’s potential effect on property values is not appropriate. Property values are directly tied to our school district’s revenue and property values are an indicator of the desirability of living in our school district. To ignore this connection overlooks an important factor in understanding both community expectations and long-term financial stability.
Austin said no immediate changes need to be made to our current transfer practices and emphasized that this meeting was only the beginning of a longer conversation. She acknowledged the importance of formalizing the district’s policy and agreement with TSC and said they would work on it in the next month. She stated that any future changes would not take effect before January. The school board president does not have the authority to speak on behalf of the administration, direct when work will be completed, or set deadlines. The school board president’s role is to schedule and conduct meetings.
Families and school leaders need time to plan ahead for the 2026–2027 school year, so there is some urgency to make this decision sooner rather than later. At this point, however, no information has been sent to the community and no listening sessions have been scheduled.
46:46 – Communication from the Audience (those who had signed up before the meeting began)
- Aliya Scott, parent in the district, program manager, and local licensed realtor, acknowledged the difficulty of the decisions being discussed. She shared that her family, like many others, chose to live in West Lafayette specifically for the schools, willingly paying higher home prices and taxes, and supporting all past referendums. Addressing the conversation around property values, Scott disagreed with the idea that they should be excluded from the discussion. She framed it not as a financial concern but one of community stability, explaining that school reputation affects where families choose to live and how invested they are in the district’s success, which ultimately benefits all students. She also expressed concern that the current agreement with TSC is only verbal. If the district is going to rely on it, she said, it needs clear boundaries and a contingency plan. Scott advocated for a cautious approach: maintaining the agreement with TSC, setting enrollment caps by grade level, and protecting the strengths of the district. She concluded by asking how the district plans to measure the impact of any changes beyond funding and whether there will be a process to reassess if circumstances shift.
- Macarena Guerrero, parent in the district with a child starting kindergarten next year, expressed surprise that redistricting was not among the options presented as part of the district’s strategic or financial planning, especially given its potential to provide long-term stability. She referenced community discussions and questions about redistricting and encouraged the board to at least open up that conversation with the community to explore possible impacts. She also raised concerns about how the financial impacts of the voucher system were being presented. While described as minimal in the presentation, she questioned whether the loss is still significant given the number of transfer students, and whether that impact might grow if more West Lafayette families begin using vouchers to enroll in private schools. She noted that the numbers shared seemed incomplete and that a more comprehensive data set is needed to support fully informed decision-making. Finally, she emphasized the importance of early and transparent communication, referencing recent controversies involving the city council and PRF.
Austin told Guerrero that the process of redistricting must be initiated by neighborhoods rather than by the school district. This is not correct. There is nothing that would prevent our school district from initiating the process. However, my understanding is that TSC has always been unwilling to even consider redistricting.
53:21 Adjournment
Dacia Mumford 