IBJNews

Lawmakers end voucher study with few clear answers

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana lawmakers ended a review of the state's school voucher program Tuesday with few clear answers — and more questions than when they started.

Supporters of the program that lets Indiana students use state money to pay for private schools argued Tuesday that private schools continue to outperform most public schools. Opponents said the vouchers are continuing a trend of siphoning money from public schools. But both sides agreed they could use more data on how the individual voucher recipients are performing, information that is not yet available in Indiana.

The assessment comes amid a continuing push from Republican lawmakers and Gov. Mike Pence to expand the 2-year-old program.

Republicans first signed off on the voucher law in 2011, and the Indiana Supreme Court recently upheld the law, deciding it did not amount to the state subsidizing certain religions. Lawmakers approved a modest expansion of the voucher program earlier this year and will likely consider further expansion when they return for their 2014 session.

More than 20,000 students applied for vouchers this year, up from roughly 9,300 students last year. The study of the income-based vouchers for low and lower-middle class families was added to this year's program expansion amid concerns a more extensive plan could become a budget-buster for Indiana.

John Elcesser, executive director of the Indiana Non-Public Education Association, delivered a report compiled by his group and other voucher supporters dubbing the program a success. He noted broad approval from the parents of voucher students and pointed to a Web-based survey that showed the top reason families left the public school system was a desire for better academics and religious training.

"I have no doubt, in my heart of hearts, this program is changing the lives of these families," he said.

But Democrats on the education panel, including one who participated in the 2011 walkout designed in part to block vouchers, said supporters were conflating performance by private schools with the performance of individual students. Rep. Vernon Smith, D-Gary, said without individual student scores it would be impossible to determine if vouchers are working.

"All you're doing is supporting private schools — you're not saying if it's working," Smith said.

But Rep. Jim Lucas, R-Seymour, pressed that the surging number of applications was evidence itself that school vouchers are successful.

"Could that not be a measure of success?" he asked.

The Indiana Department of Education, led by Democratic School Superintendent Glenda Ritz, notably did not make a presentation before the panel. House Education Chairman Bob Behning, R-Indianapolis, said the DOE was not asked to present but could have signed up to testify.

Ritz was a plaintiff in the lawsuit filed by the Indiana State Teachers Association seeking to overturn vouchers but removed her name from the suit after winning election over voucher supporter Tony Bennett last year.

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. With Pence running the ship good luck with a new government building on the site. He does everything on the cheap except unnecessary roads line a new beltway( like we need that). Things like state of the art office buildings and light rail will never be seen as an asset to these types. They don't get that these are the things that help a city prosper.

  2. Does the $100,000,000,000 include salaries for members of Congress?

  3. "But that doesn't change how the piece plays to most of the people who will see it." If it stands out so little during the day as you seem to suggest maybe most of the people who actually see it will be those present when it is dark enough to experience its full effects.

  4. That's the mentality of most retail marketers. In this case Leo was asked to build the brand. HHG then had a bad sales quarter and rather than stay the course, now want to go back to the schlock that Zimmerman provides (at a considerable cut in price.) And while HHG salesmen are, by far, the pushiest salesmen I have ever experienced, I believe they are NOT paid on commission. But that doesn't mean they aren't trained to be aggressive.

  5. The reason HHG's sales team hits you from the moment you walk through the door is the same reason car salesmen do the same thing: Commission. HHG's folks are paid by commission they and need to hit sales targets or get cut, while BB does not. The sales figures are aggressive, so turnover rate is high. Electronics are the largest commission earners along with non-needed warranties, service plans etc, known in the industry as 'cheese'. The wholesale base price is listed on the cryptic price tag in the string of numbers near the bar code. Know how to decipher it and you get things at cost, with little to no commission to the sales persons. Whether or not this is fair, is more of a moral question than a financial one.

ADVERTISEMENT