IBJNews

  • Home

School voucher proposal approved by House

Associated Press
March 30, 2011
Keywords
Education & Workforce Development, Education Finance, Government, Government & Economic Development, K-12, Legislation, Legislature, Private schools, School Vouchers, School funding, State Government, Tuition Costs
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

The Indiana House has approved a plan that would create the nation's most expansive school voucher program.

The GOP-led House voted 56-42 on Wednesday in favor of the bill that would use taxpayer money to help some parents move their children from public schools to private schools.

The program is based on an income scale, with families of four making up to about $60,000 a year qualifying. The program would be limited to 7,500 students for the first year and 15,000 in the second year.

Republican House Speaker Brian Bosma said the proposal was aimed at providing more education opportunities for those without such choices today.

Democratic Rep. Matt Pierce of Bloomington argued that the vouchers would take money away from public schools without any evidence of improving education.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Surely the taxpayers are due appropriate oversight.
    JoeMarch 31, 2011 4:08 PM
    Taxpayers expect their money will be used to teach Indiana students designaged curricula and not to proselytize. At the very least, the State should audit the books of the private contractors and audit programs on a current basis.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • Be Careful
    B. CoahranMarch 31, 2011 9:44 AM
    The more the government gets involved in private schools, the more the government will assert controls on those schools. Be careful what you ask for.
    cc
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment

    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.

    ADVANCED SEARCH
    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. These higher rates Co. e about only because physicians are now hospital employees. otherwise physicians couldn't charge these rates and share the windfall with the hospital. Community/rural hospitals probably not buying physicians practices and thus weren't getting the windfall anyway.

    2. The incentive for poor people to get themselves off public assistance and "no longer be poor" is even with help...they're STILL POOR! Being poor, even with some assistance, isn't all that pleasant. (I speak from experience) It's a stubborn myth that poor people, who are on public assistance, are sitting in the lap of luxury. You should try living on just those "freebies" that you mentioned and see how meager they actually are. By the way, I didn't mean you had to buy/own a puppy...just pet one. :)

    3. As near as I can tell the minority has ZERO constitutional obligation to offer a quorum to the majority. A requirement for quorum was inserted into the constitution so that tyrannical majorities could not simply shove through odious and objectionable legislation (which is exactly what they did.) By allowing a tyrannical majority to charge fines against the minority for exercising their constitutional prerogative to deny quorum the court as made a mockery of constitutional governance in the state of Indiana.

    4. The voters elected the Reps to make a vote not walk out on the vote. They had to the right to exercise their opinion and vote "no" to the bill. Let me ask you this if you walked out of your job for 5 straight weeks would you get paid? Would you even have a job to go back to? If any elected official walks out on the people they should be arrested for stealing tax dollars from the public. They were elected to do a job and not leave when the job gets stuff.

    5. I have been to several of their locations in Pennsylvania and always go in for 1 item and leave with a basket full of things. I'm very happy they decided on Indiana, now if only they would put the other store in eastside.

    ADVERTISEMENT