IBJNews

Education committee backs looser school voucher rules

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

A proposal that would make thousands of current private school students eligible for Indiana's school voucher program has been endorsed by a state legislative committee, although cost concerns might block its chances of advancing this year.

The state Senate Education Committee voted 5-4 Wednesday to approve a bill removing a requirement that children first spend at least one year in public schools before they can receive a voucher. Supporters say they believe all children should be treated equally.

The state this year is using about $16 million in education funds for vouchers for some 3,900 students.

The proposal now goes to the Senate Appropriations Committee for review. That committee's chairman says requiring time in a public school is a key to avoiding at least tens of millions of dollars in state costs.

Supporters say the one-year requirement is a burden that can disrupt a child's education and limits the school choice that the voucher program was meant to provide. But public schools contend eliminating the requirement would take away their chance to compete for students.

The voucher law allows up to 15,000 children this coming school year. In future years there would be no cap, though voucher supporters have no estimates about what additional costs might be involved.

Senate Education Committee Chairman Dennis Kruse said last year's decision to require a year in public schools was a compromise he reluctantly accepted.

"I think parents can make the choice on knowing what they want for their child and their family," said Kruse, R-Auburn.

State figures show that nearly 27,000 private-school students participate in federal lunch programs, which have family income levels that are lower than those set for voucher eligibility.

Republican Sen. Doug Eckerty of Yorktown, who is sponsoring the bill that would remove the one-year requirement, said with more than 11,000 voucher spots open for next school year, he believed the greater flexibility would help children remain in their current schools.

"We've got room to grow into that," he said. "We can certainly take those kids instead of flipping them back and forth, just go ahead and allow them to stay."

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 IBJ 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
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. So the Mayor adds another non value added layer to having a vehicle towed? Whereby the City Government RECIEVES AN ILLEGAL KICKBACK FROM A LGOISTICS COMPANY THAT SUBS THE WORK TO LOCAL TOW COMPANIES? What is the service the City performs for receiving the "tribute"? This is RICO!!!!! What a corrupt and unnecessary layer. What a dirtbag Mayor and his cronies.

  2. Owner occupied housing. Clear enough?

  3. So people think I am paranoid. It's from experience in dealing with puds requested by developers who make major donations themselves to representatives, have nice fund raisers for those running for office and hide through pac's. then there are the public relation firms. You will note some pr comments below. You there Clyde Lee? My opinion. Commercial along 421, great. Multifamily housing, terrible idea that will change the town. Senior condos or zero lot line homes west, great. I suggest keeping all entries to commercial areas at 421. All entries to owner occupied on sycamore. Will keep the traffic on sycamore down some. Two other things. You can't trust what will be there in 10 years. Steve builds quality stuff, but areas change over time. Look at the changes at the wall mart center at 86th and 421 over the last 10 years. Look at the apartments and neighborhoods behind St Vincent's. Raintree properties WILL decrease in value if commercial and multifamily goes in near. It has already been happening around the bridges area. The houses that have been sold recently are way below market. Several deals not closed due to the Illinois construction and the whole unsurety of the bridges. It's pretty simple, Zionsville will approve the whole thing because the city council has been groomed over a LONG period of time for this. I might even suggest some are in their position as a result of this.

  4. Esta, do you have a dog in this fight? You seem to really want to knock anyone against this project. No, I didn't move to Indiana for the architecture. I moved here for that red barn in the field. The horses and fields of corn. A place that is NOT overdeveloped. There are plenty of nearby places in Indianapolis that could be REDEVELOPED instead.

  5. RKW - OK, we get it, you're paranoid. The question is, are you paranoid enough? Greg - Yes, Pittman(s) is (are) at it again. They are developers, they build things. It's what they do. So when you go to work tomorrow, Greg, you're at it again too. Cliff - Really? You moved to Indiana for its progressive architecture? That's like moving to England for the cuisine. Zionsvillain - The house you moved to was once a field or woods. I'm willing to bet folks were upset when that ground was plowed under and a house was built. But I guess now that you are in, everything should stop? "My house was OK, but the next one is sprawl." SE Guy - Please don't paint us with such a wide brush. Most reasonable Zionsville residents welcome planned, measured development.

ADVERTISEMENT