IBJNews

Indiana voucher memo confuses, concerns districts

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A memo that sparked concern among Indiana's school districts by saying they would begin losing funding this month under the state's new private school voucher law was sent "prematurely" several months before the first funding reductions take place, a state education official says.

School leaders across the state received the memo in September showing the varying amounts each school district would lose in November to support the state-funded voucher program, the Journal and Courier of Lafayette reported.

Tippecanoe School Corp. Chief Financial Officer Kim Fox said the letter showed that her north-central Indiana district would lose more than $80,000 in state funding in November under the voucher program.

"When we received the memo, it came as quite a shock because we weren't planning for it," Fox said.

She and other local school officials were shocked because they had been told they would see no funding reduction in the current calendar year — and that money for the vouchers would be deducted from their regularly scheduled tuition support payments twice a year, starting next year.

They took their concerns to state lawmakers, who were also puzzled by the memo about the voucher program, which grants tax-based scholarships for low- and middle-income families to attend private schools.

State Rep. Randy Truitt, who voted in favor of the voucher bill, said the memo was a misunderstanding and that "the fear of another reduction is totally unfounded."

State Department of Education spokeswoman Stephanie Sample said the memo has been sent out too early. She said any funding reduction districts will see will come through their regularly scheduled tuition support payments, the first of which is in February.

"We sent that out prematurely, and we heard a lot of feedback that that didn't represent what they thought was going to happen. We fielded a lot of those concerns and agreed with them," Sample said.

The September memo isn't the first time the state's education agency has misinterpreted the law. In July, the agency released new teacher contract forms for the 2011-12 school year that a Marion County judge later declared illegal.

"There's definitely a lot of ambition at the Statehouse regarding the DOE, and I think that urgency that is kind of out there, that ambition, that overeagerness — I think sometimes you can get ahead of yourself on a decision," said Tippecanoe School Corp. Superintendent Scott Hanback.

Final enrollment numbers released earlier this month show that Indiana's voucher program has seen the largest first-year turnout of any voucher program in the nation.

Statewide, 3,919 students received more than $16 million in state-funded scholarships to attend private and mostly religious schools. The number of participants was capped at 7,500 for the program's first year.

The Indiana State Teacher's Association is backing a legal challenge to the voucher law.

A principal argument of proponents of the voucher program was that by issuing scholarships in amounts less than what the public school would have spent on that student's education, the program would save money.

For example, if a district gets $6,000 for a student and that student received a $4,500 scholarship, the additional $1,500 would somehow be returned to education funding.

But how that return will be made — whether to the pot of education funding prior to it being divvied up among districts or to each district in an amount proportional to the number of students that district lost to vouchers — is not yet clear.

"That's something I don't think we're ready to talk about yet," Sample said.

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. John, unfortunately CTRWD wants to put the tank(s) right next to a nature preserve and at the southern entrance to Carmel off of Keystone. Not exactly the kind of message you want to send to residents and visitors (come see our tanks as you enter our city and we build stuff in nature preserves...

  2. 85 feet for an ambitious project? I could shoot ej*culate farther than that.

  3. I tried, can't take it anymore. Untill Katz is replaced I can't listen anymore.

  4. Perhaps, but they've had a very active program to reduce rainwater/sump pump inflows for a number of years. But you are correct that controlling these peak flows will require spending more money - surge tanks, lines or removing storm water inflow at the source.

  5. All sewage goes to the Carmel treatment plant on the White River at 96th St. Rainfall should not affect sewage flows, but somehow it does - and the increased rate is more than the plant can handle a few times each year. One big source is typically homeowners who have their sump pumps connect into the sanitary sewer line rather than to the storm sewer line or yard. So we (Carmel and Clay Twp) need someway to hold the excess flow for a few days until the plant can process this material. Carmel wants the surge tank located at the treatment plant but than means an expensive underground line has to be installed through residential areas while CTRWD wants the surge tank located further 'upstream' from the treatment plant which costs less. Either solution works from an environmental control perspective. The less expensive solution means some people would likely have an unsightly tank near them. Carmel wants the more expensive solution - surprise!

ADVERTISEMENT