House committee nixes changes to Indiana scholarships

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A proposal to tighten requirements for Indiana's popular 21st Century Scholars program for low-income students is in limbo after a legislative committee removed it from a package of revisions to college financial aid programs.

The House Education Committee also diluted proposals that would have limited the number of full college scholarships given to the children of disabled military veterans.

The committee on Monday deleted changes to the 21st Century Scholars program because a similar bill was caught up in the five-week boycott by House Democrats over unrelated issues.

Changes approved by the Senate would increase the required high school grade-point average from 2.0 to 2.5 for a student to receive the scholarship.

Nearly 13,000 students received 21st Century scholarships last school year — up 44 percent from 2006. Those students promised as middle school students to not use drugs, stay out of criminal trouble and receive acceptable grades.

Rep. Tom Dermody, R-LaPorte, said he was committed to making changes to the 21st Century Scholars program to ensure its long-term sustainability. Dermody has sponsored a bill that would have required a check at the end of high school to make sure students still met the income guidelines for the scholarships.

Dermody said he was looking for a way to put the provisions into another bill in the Senate, which would be allowed under the agreement House leaders reached to end Democrats walkout over GOP-backed legislation they consider an assault on labor unions and public education.

Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Luke Kenley, R-Noblesville, sponsored the proposals in the Senate and could restore them to the state budget bill.

"I'm not sure where we're going," Kenley told The Journal Gazette of Fort Wayne. "The ball is in (the House's) court."

The House committee also removed many of the changes to the college scholarship program for the children of disabled veterans that Kenley had advocated.

That plan would have continued granting full scholarships to children of deceased veterans and to those of veterans who are at least 80-percent disabled. Benefits for others would be staggered based on the parent's level of disability.

Kenley said no funding cuts were planned for the program but that he wanted to make sure money was available for the children of those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Veterans groups have opposed those changes, saying it devalues the sacrifices of disabled veterans.

The committee took out all reference to disability percentages and instead simply limits the scholarships based on a few eligibility changes. For instance, children must use the scholarships before age 32, any federal tuition aid must be used first and parents must live in Indiana.


  • 2.5
    I think 2.5 is reasonable for a scholarship but 2.0 is a bit low.
  • Scholarship
    Anyone who can not make a least a 2.5 gpa should not be able to get a scholarship. If you cannnot make at least a Cn you should not be going to college. That is a waste of money that could be given to a student who makes better grades. No wonder we have so many dumb graduates in Indiana!!!!

    Post a comment to this story

    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

    facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
    Subscribe to IBJ
    1. I'm a CPA who works with a wide range of companies (through my firm K.B.Parrish & Co.); however, we work with quite a few car dealerships, so I'm fairly interested in Fatwin (mentioned in the article). Does anyone have much information on that, or a link to such information? Thanks.

    2. Historically high long-term unemployment, unprecedented labor market slack and the loss of human capital should not be accepted as "the economy at work [and] what is supposed to happen" and is certainly not raising wages in Indiana. See Chicago Fed Reserve: goo.gl/IJ4JhQ Also, here's our research on Work Sharing and our support testimony at yesterday's hearing: goo.gl/NhC9W4

    3. I am always curious why teachers don't believe in accountability. It's the only profession in the world that things they are better than everyone else. It's really a shame.

    4. It's not often in Indiana that people from both major political parties and from both labor and business groups come together to endorse a proposal. I really think this is going to help create a more flexible labor force, which is what businesses claim to need, while also reducing outright layoffs, and mitigating the impact of salary/wage reductions, both of which have been highlighted as important issues affecting Hoosier workers. Like many other public policies, I'm sure that this one will, over time, be tweaked and changed as needed to meet Indiana's needs. But when you have such broad agreement, why not give this a try?

    5. I could not agree more with Ben's statement. Every time I look at my unemployment insurance rate, "irritated" hardly describes my sentiment. We are talking about a surplus of funds, and possibly refunding that, why, so we can say we did it and get a notch in our political belt? This is real money, to real companies, large and small. The impact is felt across the board; in the spending of the company, the hiring (or lack thereof due to higher insurance costs), as well as in the personal spending of the owners of a smaller company.