Why you should call your legislator about the Indiana Voucher Bill

• It will shatter the barrier between church and state in K-12 schools observed since the 1851 Constitution.

• It will divert $58.5 million during the next two years from public schools to private schools based on 7500 vouchers in the first year and 15,000 vouchers in the second year. As schools begin laying off teachers due to budget problems, this is a bad time to undermine public school funding in this way.

• It adds an income deduction for home school parent expenses and private school parent expenses costing the taxpayers $3.7 million per year. This would be the first state benefit for home schools in Indiana history, giving new money to home schools while public school budgets are struggling.

• It would end the 160 year practice of giving state funding only to public schools to educate young citizens about our democracy in a non-partisan, non-sectarian forum. Public schools have been the bedrock of our democracy and the centers of our communities, but vouchers could fragment this system.

Cherry-Picking Evidence on Vouchers

As the Indiana spin machine continues, be very skeptical about claims that vouchers will help public schools. The standard M-O here is that groups supporting particular issues release "research reports" that support those issues and then the policy people cite those reports as evidence.  Ingenious, insidious.....unethical.

New Win-Win Report on School Vouchers Still Not a Winner


BOULDER, CO (April 19, 2011) – In 2009, the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice released a report titled A Win-Win Solution: The Empirical Evidence on How Vouchers Affect Public Schools. The report was reviewed for the Think Twice project by University of Illinois professor Chris Lubienski, who concluded that the 2009 report purports to gather all available empirical evidence on the question of the competitive effects of vouchers, finding a strong consensus that vouchers help public schools. But the report, based on a review of 17 studies, selectively interprets the evidence to support the Foundation’s own conclusions.

The Friedman Foundation has now released an updated version of the report, combining the older discussion of the effects of school competition with a new discussion of various outcomes for voucher participants. The new report, however, is equally flawed.  The earlier Friedman report asserts that “contrary to the widespread claim that vouchers hurt public schools, the empirical evidence consistently supports the conclusion that vouchers improve public schools. No empirical study has ever found that vouchers had a negative impact on public schools” (executive summary).

Lubienski’s review explains that the 2009 report cherry-picks evidence and that the majority of studies cited “were produced by a very small group of people largely associated with school choice advocacy organizations” (p. 6).

Lubienski’s review of the original report explains that the cited “studies include some rigorous work by respected researchers. But issues of methodology, interpretation, and generalizability emerge when the research is marshaled simply to support a narrow agenda, as with the Friedman Foundation’s. Then, the temptation for selectively summarizing research can distort the actual findings” (p. 5).

For instance, Lubienski points to the report’s misuse of Carnoy and his colleagues’ (2007) research. The new report continues to inappropriately use the Carnoy work, as well as others, in order to contend that vouchers have a positive “competition” effect on public school systems. In fact, as Lubienski states, the actual study that Carnoy and colleagues conducted to test the competition effects of voucher systems “found no competition effect” in their results (p. 5).

Lubienski also criticized the earlier Friedman report for championing the expansion of school voucher programs without acknowledging that previous expansions did not increase any positive effects that could be attributed to competition. The new report again sidesteps an explanation for this lack of success, except to present it as evidence of the need to expand the programs more dramatically.

What the new report does add is a discussion of research concerning the effects of voucher programs on the students receiving the vouchers. The report cites eight studies, most of them conducted by avowed voucher advocates.

It is remarkable how unrestrained the report is in pursuing the conclusion of “positive effects” when a fair reading of these studies would conclude there is minimal to no effect. Most disconcerting is the over-reach and distortion employed in the report’s attempt to dismiss the prominent and peer-reviewed study by Princeton’s Alan Krueger and Pei Zhu, which found no effects of a voucher program in New York City.

While the new Win-Win report does improve upon the original report’s arguments in some areas, the overall logic and corresponding evidence still falls short of making the case. The report is not a useful review of the effects of school competition.

Links to Reports/Review:

The original 2009 Win-Win report, produced by The Friedman Foundation, can be found at the following link: http://tinyurl.com/44of9vr

The NEPC Think Twice Review of the 2009 Win-Win report, done by Chris Lubienski, can be found at the following link: http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-win-win-solution

The new Win-Win report, released in March 2011 by The Friedman Foundation, can be found at the following link: http://tinyurl.com/3hm9jby

The Think Twice think tank review project (http://thinktankreview.org), a project of the National Education Policy Center, provides the public, policy makers, and the press with timely, academically sound, reviews of selected think tank publications. The project is made possible in part by the generous support of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice.

From the Statehouse

Vic’s Statehouse Notes #67 February 25, 2011


Dear Friends,
Yesterday’s Indianapolis Star (Feb. 24th) listed eleven bills that House Democrats “have concerns about.” I have tracked four of these eleven bills on their journey through the House Education Committee: HB 1002, HB 1003, HB 1479, and HB 1584. Here are some details about these four bills that seem to be involved in the standoff:

House Bill 1002 – Charter School Expansion

In “Vic’s Notes #51-Jan. 21, 2011”, I detailed the testimony of 24 speakers in a five hour hearing, with 12 speaking for it and 12 speaking against it. It subsequently cleared the committee on a party line vote and was approved on third reading in the House, 59-37. Rep. Sullivan, a long time advocate for charter schools, coauthored the bill and was the only Democrat to vote for it. One Republican, Rep. Neese, voted against it. Dr. Bennett issued a press release announcing that the charter bill passed with bipartisan support. He might also have reported that it had bipartisan opposition.

The objection to the charter bill registered by the Indiana Coalition for Public Education was that it allowed private colleges and universities to be authorizers of charter schools. I and others in the ICPE believe that decisions committing public dollars to public charter schools must always be made by publicly elected or appointed entities, not by private college trustees who are not accountable to the public. It is bad public policy to let private entities determine the distribution of public money. Keep in mind, the authorizer gets to keep 3% of the public charter school tuition money for their trouble, so there is a financial incentive to push enrollment. Joel Hand, executive director of ICPE, gave strong testimony against allowing private colleges to be authorizers. In my own testimony, I argued the same point, saying that surely a new state charter board and many more mayors would expand charter schools enormously without the need to involve private colleges.

In a television interview, Kevin Brinegar, President of the Indiana Chamber of Commerce, said that only private colleges that had a School of Education would be allowed to authorize charter schools, but he was incorrect. The only restriction on private colleges is that they must be non-proprietary colleges, that is, not-for-profit colleges.

Interestingly in the long debate over second reading amendments, coauthor Rep. Sullivan sponsored the amendment to delete private colleges as authorizers. One might think that her months of faithful work with Speaker Bosma as a coauthor might give her enough respect to gain bipartisan support in ending this one highly divisive provision. It didn’t work. Her amendment attracted the support of only two Republicans, and it was soundly defeated. As HB 1002 now stands, any not-for-profit private college or university approved by the state board can authorize any number of charter schools.

House Bill 1003 – School Vouchers

Whether to privatize public education is the question of our generation. I absolutely oppose giving public tax dollars for private school tuition. House Bill 1003 is the tip of the spear for privatization, providing both private school vouchers and expanded private school tax credits. It would push privatization further than any other state has ever done, making Indiana “Exhibit #1” for undermining public education with privatization measures. It deserves to be on anybody’s list of bills to fight with fervor.

Faithful readers of “Vic’s Statehouse Notes” already know the irreparable harm that HB 1003 would do to public school students. Notes #52, #60, #62, #63, #64, #65 and #66 have focused on details of this bill. No more needs to be added here, except to say the latest talking points document against HB 1003 is attached for your use with legislators and colleagues.

House Bill 1479 – Turnaround Academies

In a normal legislative session – and this is clearly not a normal session – House Bill 1479 would be a centerpiece of debate and controversy. As the session has unfolded, it has received almost no attention. It would be the first legislative revision of Public Law 221, Indiana’s accountability system. PL221 was passed as a collaborative bipartisan measure in 1999. This revision is clearly not bipartisan.

Here are its major provisions:

1) Consequences including state take-over for schools in the lowest (F) category of PL221 would now apply to schools that have been in the lowest two categories (D or F). This change would immediately jump the number of schools eligible for state take-over from about 20 to about 220. There would no longer be any real difference between D schools and F schools. Both categories would get the same consequences. This bill would have the practical effect of reducing the number of PL 221 categories for school ratings from five to four: A,B,C and F.

2) The state could turn schools in these lowest categories over to Turnaround School Operators (TSO’s) under a contract for 5 years. The contract could also be renewed for 5 years.

3) Nothing in the bill prohibits Turnaround School Operators from being for-profit management companies. Joel Hand, executive director of ICPE, testified against allowing for-profit managers under this bill. Chairman Behning, in response, expressed support for for-profit companies in this arena.

It seems clear to me that with for-profit companies, the public never knows whether students are getting the funding they should get or whether the company is shorting the students to maximize profits for owners and shareholders. It is a fundamental, unsolvable problem with for-profit school management companies working with public school students and public school dollars: Isn’t any level of profit going to take money away that could be funding student programs? Private companies do not want all financial matters to be transparent to let the public know about their profit margin.

This is the point from the bill that the House Democrats seem to be focused on.

4) After the turnaround school is successfully released from the contract, HB 1479 would make it an independent school not linked to its original school district. This is a new concept, and it is hard to know what it would mean. The language on the General Assembly website still says it would be an “independent school corporation,” but an amendment from Chairman Behning last Monday (Feb. 21st) when the bill passed committee took out the concept of “corporation.” The committee approved the bill 8-3 on a party line vote.

Any bill that could create over 200 independent schools, a new concept, certainly deserves a high level of attention for a complete statewide discussion and debate.

House Bill 1584 – Deregulation

HB 1584 was a vehicle bill and has had a strange history under the radar. To this moment, if you go to HB 1584 on the General Assembly website and click on “latest printing”, it will simply tell you it is a vehicle bill, which means it has been filed as a blank shell for possible later use to insert new language. The language inserted originally allowed the state board of education to grant a waiver to any school for any statute except for a short list of protected statutes, all in the name of deregulation. Discussions were held about the vast scope of these waivers at a meeting few attended. The low attendance had to do with the fact that the meeting was announced at the end of a late Monday night floor session to be held the next morning. No vote was taken at that meeting.

Then by Monday morning (Feb. 21), Chairman Behning amended the bill to call for a study of deregulation to be completed by Nov. 1, 2011. To see the final version of the bill that the House Education Committee approved 9-2 on Feb. 21st, click on “Committee Report” on the General Assembly website information under HB 1584.

In this form, the bill certainly does not carry the incredible consequences that the other three bills carry.

I hope these notes will give you the information you need to discuss these matters with legislators and others in the Third House sessions this weekend and throughout the coming week. Keep up the good work of communicating with legislators during this crucial time!

Best wishes,

Vic Smith vic790@aol.com
INDIANA COALITION FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION

Questions for so-called education reformers

Dr. Ed Eiler, Superintendent for the Lafayette School Corporation, recently paid for a full page ad in the

Lafayette Journal and Courier in support of public education and the issues we are dealing with right now
in the current State legislative session [worth qouting at length].

Privatization, vouchers, choice, and charter schools.

I am concerned about flight from the urban schools in Indiana that will result in an increase in the density and concentration of students living in poverty in our older cities. Any public policy that has that effect is unsound and will result in defacto segregation. Of equal concern is the possibility that students from rural schools will migrate to suburban schools. The reality is most school districts have a limited capacity to accept additional students. This will require school districts to implement selection criteria regarding who they will allow to enroll. While it would be possible to develop a limited number of neutral criteria such as allowing children of employees or students living within a specific geographic boundary, the potential for discriminatory policies is quite real if not on paper, then in implementation. In essence the state is enabling school districts to choose students. The parents who elect and are allowed to exercise the choice will be parents with the money to do so. If choice is to be a public policy, there could not be a worse form of choice. A far more defensible choice option would be to give students living in poverty (which should be defined as the threshold for free and reduced lunch, not the $101,982 for a family of four set forth in the Indiana School Scholarship Tax Program) who fail ISTEP the choice of where they go to school and require schools to provide transportation. This would have the effect of distributing poverty.

Present law holds the portent of substantial swings in enrollment. When combined with the volatility of sales tax revenue these circumstances will make it extremely difficult to plan, budget, and meet the needs of students.

There is also the question whether some schools will apply their cash transfer policies in a non-discriminatory fashion. It would be easy to deny some subsets of students. For example, this could hold true when a district has a reputation of providing excellent special education services. It would be very attractive for parents in neighboring districts to pay cash transfer to attend school in the district providing the better services. This raises the specter of overtaxing the resources of the district by being confronted with providing programs which are not adequately funded or merely not accepting the special education student as a cash transfer student. Of course there is the issue of athletics.

As in medicine the first litmus test for any public policy should be “do no harm”. A second test should be that the public policy should not generate greater problems than the problems the policy is designed to solve. In this case problems associated with urban districts with high poverty populations will make the problems of parents not being able to select the “best’ school pale by comparison. In part we are focusing on the wrong issue. The issue is how do we deliver quality education to all students? The bottom line is at present no proposal exists that creates an environment of fair competition.

There are a multitude of people in America with agendas. Not the least of which is greed and self-interest. There are people who believe they can make money in education through skimming the cream of the crop of students and those who will become richer by not having to support a public educational system. In America money buys influence and power. These motives should not drive educational decisions.

Currently a series of “documentary” style movies funded by voucher advocates including Waiting for Superman have painted a picture of a failing public school system in which no public educator is shown in anything but an unfavorable light, if at all, and charter schools are presented as the solution. (For a more complete analysis see Diane Ravitch’s, The Myth of Charter Schools, in the New York Times Review of Books.

Charter schools are not the panacea they are painted to be. Virtually every example of charters with substantial achievement results incorporates the ability of the charter to select students. Any school which is allowed to select students should be expected to outperform schools who are not allowed to select their students.

The foregoing notwithstanding, I believe there is a narrow niche charter schools could fill. They could serve as a safety net to ensure there is an educational alternative available for children who otherwise would not be receiving an education. That is in fact the reason the Lafayette School Corporation agreed to sponsor the one charter school it has sponsored.

There is a greater issue posed by privatization, vouchers, choice, and charter schools. The issue is much larger than the impact these policies may have on an individual school in a local community. The issue is one that will define who we are as a nation. Do we choose to be united or divided?

Vouchers cost taxpayers money because with vouchers the state has created two school systems, one private the other public. A study by Columbia University Professor Henry Levin concluded a national voucher plan would cost taxpayers nearly $33 billion additional dollars just to pay the tuition for students already in private schools. The Wisconsin Legislative Fiscal Bureau concluded that in Milwaukee where vouchers were offered, property taxes were higher than they would have been without a school choice program. Private school tuition does not cover the actual cost to educate students. While subsidies from other sources can be used to educate a select few children, such a model cannot be used for all students. Indiana’s solution is to fund vouchers and charter schools by taking money from existing public schools.

A United States Government Accounting Office study “found little or no difference in voucher and public school student’s performance.” In the vast majority of cases across the country voucher schools are not required to reveal student test results or give students the same tests required of public schools. The reality is private voucher schools are allowed to play by an entirely different set of rules than those imposed on public schools. They do not have to accept any child who wants to attend. What is the poverty at-risk student count, the number of students receiving free or reduced lunches, the number of limited English language, minority students, or special education students in the schools that want to tout their schools performance as better than public schools? True competition requires everyone to operate under the same set of rules. If that fails to occur, the idea that vouchers somehow introduce competition is intellectually dishonest. The current programs being discussed by policy makers and the public are not voucher plans. They are targeted assistance plans. Genuine choice requires every child be given the resources to make a free choice of where they attend school. This would require a huge investment of resources. Even if a portion of that money were directed towards our current public school system a vast majority of our children would benefit greatly.

Proponents of vouchers and privatization need to answer the following questions:

1. How will a system of private or charter schools do a better job of ensuring all children will have equal access to educational opportunity than the current system of public education?

2. What methods and techniques of instruction are used in private or charter schools that are better than those used in public schools? If there are some, for the good of the country don’t you think these should be shared with everyone?

3. What laws, rules, and regulations are private or charter schools exempted from that permit them to be more effective or efficient? If there are some and the nation is at risk, don’t you think all schools should be exempted from them?

The biggest problem confronting our world in the 21st century is and will remain the increasing schism between the haves and the have nots. Public schools help close that schism, not widen it. Public schools serve all children. Public schools try to teach respect for others and tolerance for differences. Public schools do not allow students to ignore content standards. Public schools aren’t about training children for a specific job at the expense of the arts. Public schools do not exist to make money for a select few. Public schools are about believing in all children and inspiring them to hope and dream.

Creativity and fresh thinking are not the sole purview of those in private or charter schools. If there are ideas that would benefit children, they need to be shared with everyone so that all children benefit. Our children are far too important for us to do otherwise.

During the last legislative session the legislature passed the Indiana School Scholarship Tax Program. Examination of the laws in other states underscores the significance of what is not contained in the Indiana School Scholarship Tax Program. There is no prohibition about the contribution directly benefiting the dependent of a donor. There is no language limiting the tax credit to a single parent of a child whose parents are divorced or separated. There is no prohibition in using the scholarships to fund the costs of teaching religious tenets or doctrines of worship. The program goes beyond providing scholarships only to people who qualify for free or reduced lunch.



It is clear the law was enacted to begin the process of funding private education. The law diminishes tax revenue available to the state. The law has the effect of attempting to remove the argument concerning government support of parochial schools by removing the government one step from the distribution of money directly to parochial schools. Given the nature of the income restrictions the law will advantage families of means, children already attending private schools, and children attending parochial schools.

Arguments about tax credits will continue. Should the state forego money that could be used by the state for other purposes including public schools and allow that money to fund private and parochial schools? Who should benefit from such a program? If a tax credit program is going to exist, what form should it take? Should it encompass a credit for all parents for educational expenses regardless of where a child attends school? Should the program be expanded to include funding educational reform and improvement initiatives? As a minimum, efforts need to be taken to amend the law to correct the lack of clear definitions and lack of transparency.

Some of the today’s most controversial proposals may have some merit. Seniority, the structure of the tenure system, and the scope of collective bargaining are legitimate topics for public policy discussions.

There are many educational reform proposals being made by state and national legislators. If these measures are built upon objective data and are modified by reasoned discourse, they should be implemented. If the intent of any proposal, however well disguised, is to serve political agendas, personal self interest, or is built upon popular prejudices supported by false claims, that reform should be discarded.

Public education is one of the pillars of our nation. As Horace Mann put it, “The public school is the greatest discovery made by man.” He believed education is best provided in schools embracing children of all religious, social, and ethnic backgrounds.

Do changes need to be made to our current system? The answer is yes. However, at present the environment of the discussion can be described best by Herman Wouk’s introduction to Caine Mutiny, “When in danger or in doubt, run in circles scream and shout.”

There is a substantive difference between opinion that is informed by peer reviewed research and uninformed opinion. Unfortunately in today’s world of viral media, uninformed opinion is given as much, if not more weight, than informed opinion. Discussion of educational reform must be informed, reflective, and respectful. I am concerned about the repercussions of some of the ill conceived proposals being offered. I am afraid they will create an even greater sense of confusion, frustration, turmoil, and will result in unwise public policies.

Addressing the challenge of educational reform requires far more words than this superficial treatment of the topic. It requires knowledgeable professionals engaged in research, study, discussion, and practice.

The idea of improvement and accountability are good ideas, but not wrapped in a package designed to degrade public education and spur privatization. I believe there is no better calling than nurturing, inspiring, and empowering children to learn. The task of educating our children is of vital importance to our future. The overwhelming majority of teachers and administrators chose the education profession to make a difference in the lives of children. I can only hope that everyone engaged in addressing the topic of educational reform will “Put Children First” as much as the overwhelming number of public school teachers and administrators do.

Edward E. Eiler, Ed.D., Supt, Lafayette School Corporation

Why School Vouchers are Bad for Indiana

7 Reasons Why Public Dollars Should Stay with Public School Students

and Should NOT Be Diverted To Help Private Schools

#1 PUBLIC SCHOOLS ARE OPEN TO ALL - Public schools proudly take every student who comes to enroll.  Private schools can pick and choose among applicants and can reject any student without an explanation.  The inclusiveness of public schools requires support and resources.

#2 PUBLIC SCHOOLS ARE THE BEDROCK OF DEMOCRACY - Public schools have been the key institution responsible for teaching about and perpetuating our democracy.  Public schools are required by law to provide good citizenship instruction (IC20-30-5-6), to display the flag, and to “provide a daily opportunity to for students of the school corporation to voluntarily recite the Pledge of Allegiance in each classroom”, while in private schools, these matters are optional and unregulated.

#3 PUBLIC SCHOOLS NEED FINANCIAL STABILITY - Public schools need stable support to maintain and improve programs.  Any incentive created by the General Assembly to use public funds to attract students to private schools will mean less money for the public school since the money follows the child.  This dollar drain undercuts the stability of public school programs.

#4 PUBLIC SCHOOLS ARE CENTERS OF THE COMMUNITY - Public schools bring the entire community together.  Shifting to a publicly funded set of small private schools will fragment the community along religious and philosophical lines.

 
#5 PUBLIC SCHOOLS SERVE ALL INCOME LEVELS - Claims that vouchers are being directed to low income families ring hollow; the private school tax credit enacted in 2009 provided scholarships to families earning up to $81,586 for a family of four.  House Bill 1003 would raise that limit to $101,982 for a family of four.  Few would consider this to be “low-income.”

#6 PUBLIC SCHOOLS HAVE STEADILY IMPROVED - Claims that Indiana’s public school performance is declining are simply untrue.  Steady improvement over the past 20 years in Indiana’s public schools has been clearly documented.  Currently, Indiana’s public schools stand at or near their highest marks in history on attendance rate, SAT math, ACT, National Assessment, ISTEP+, and percentage earning Academic Honors diplomas and Core 40 diplomas.  Indiana outperforms Florida on 4^th & 8^th grade math, 8^th grade reading, and 4^th & 8^th grade science on the National Assessment.  Of course, more improvement is needed to meet global economic competition, but outsourcing students to private schools will undercut support and hamper further improvement in public schools.  Parents who press leaders to fund improvements for their public schools will simply be told to take their child to a private school if they don’t like their public school.

#7 PUBLIC SCHOOLS ARE NOT SECTARIAN - Regarding school choice, of course many families would choose religious schools for their children for religious reasons.  Taxpayers, however, should not be obligated to send students to parochial schools even if that is the choice of the parents.  That is why the Indiana Constitution says: “No money shall be drawn from the treasury, for the benefit of any religious or theological institution.”  Our public policies must avoid financial entanglements with religious schools. School choice should be offered within the arena of public schools, through neighborhood schools, magnet schools, tuition transfer to nearby districts, virtual schools and the 62 charter schools now available.

...Let your voice be heard!  Call or write your legislator.

Fighting Bad "Reform" in Indiana

For those interested in public education, two new groups have formed: Indiana Coalition for Public Education (see message below) and Indiana Democrats for Education Reform (http://www.indfer.com/
 contact: larrygrau@gmail.com)


____________________________________________
Dear Friends,

Will parents, educators and community members who are advocates for public education show up at the Statehouse to fight the biggest privatization of public schools ever proposed in Indiana?

We’re about to find out.



House Bill 1003 has been introduced, and it could shift as much as $110 million from public schools to private schools. It would make Indiana the Voucher Capital of the US. The Star called the proposal “the most expansive publicly funded school voucher program in the nation.”

It will be given a hearing one of these Wednesdays at the regular 8:30am meeting of the House Education, perhaps even this Wednesday, Jan. 26th. We don’t know yet. Are you ready to come to the Statehouse to testify and to talk with your legislators?

Here, in brief, are some of the major provisions:

• The current tax credit program for private school tuition (established in 2009)

• would get as much as $12.5 million per year in tax money, up from the current $2.5 million

• would gradually rise to an 80% tax credit for donors, up from the current 50%

• would be available to a family of four earning $101,982, up from the current $81,586

• would be available to students who had been in a public school the previous two semesters

• The new voucher program (using average amounts cited by LSA; actual voucher amounts vary by districts)

• would give a family of four making less than $40,793 a voucher of $4.964 for private school tuition.

• would give a family of four making less than $81,586 a voucher of $2,758 for private school tuition.

• would give a family of four making less than $101,982 a voucher of $1,379 for private school tuition.

• would include private schools that do not give ISTEP but give norm-referenced tests.

• would have no limits except the limits on seats available in private schools, estimated to be 20,000.

The fiscal note from the Legislative Services Agency estimates that the reduction in tuition support for public schools will be $5.5 million per year for every 1000 students who transfer from public to private. Multiply that figure by the 20,000 potential transfers based on seats available, and the total amount that could potentially transfer from public schools to private schools is $110 million.

Is there any righteous indignation left out there in the public school community?

Indiana has many religious families, and if the state will pay for a religious education for their child, of course they are going to take up the offer, even if they are currently happy with their public school. Paying for religious school tuition, however, is not what our Constitution envisioned.

Will you tell your legislators to oppose this bill?

Perhaps years of demeaning the public schools with the flawed AYP measures of No Child Left Behind have left the public confused about public schools. If this voucher plan doesn’t put public school folks into gear, nothing will. If you would want to come to the hearing, whenever it is, to testify against this bill, you might want to review the attached page entitled “7 Reasons Why Public Dollars Should Stay with Public School Students.” Testimony should be short and to the point. Bring your passion.

I hope to see you in the Statehouse whenever the House Education Committee holds a hearing on HB 1003.

Best wishes,

Vic Smith: vic790@aol.com
Indiana Coalition for Public Education

Nov. 2nd Vote on the end of Public Education

A critical piece of commentary on the future of public education in Indiana.  Read it, take some notes, and pass it too a friend--then, for God's sake, VOTE.___________________________
The House Republicans of the Indiana House of Representatives, in their election agenda issued in early September, have called for private school vouchers and expanded private school tax credits if they gain control of the House in the November 2nd elections.


I oppose private school vouchers and tax credits, which would divert public money to private schools and insure the slow death of public schools through the gradual loss of both funding and community support. Therefore I must oppose the efforts of House Republican to win a majority in the House with my vote and with my voice.

Specifically, House Republicans call for public dollars to fund “grants” to allow students in “failing schools” to attend private schools, ignoring numerous public and charter options already available. They also call for an expansion of the tax credit program passed in the 2009 budget which diverts $2.5 million in state tax money to fund private school scholarships for “low-income families”. “Low-income” as defined in the 2009 law includes those making up to $81,586 for a family of four. Is that really “low income”?

Control of the House has been determined by a razor thin margin for years. Currently, Democrats hold the advantage 52-48. In 2005, when Republicans last recaptured the Indiana House by a 52-48 margin, I witnessed an epic legislative battle for several months on a bill to establish both private school vouchers and tax credits. Finally on April 7th, an amendment to remove vouchers from the bill passed 57-41 vote, with 10 courageous Republicans bucking their caucus leaders to resist private school vouchers.

Now, after retirements and primary election defeats, only two of those ten are still in the legislature. More recently in the 2010 short session, an amendment to SB309 was offered to allow tax credits for contributions to private schools, and only two Republican representatives opposed it.

The picture is clear. If they are in control, the Republican leadership will not fail in their efforts to bring private school vouchers and expanded tax credits to Indiana.  Therefore, the Nov. 2nd election is a referendum on the blockbuster issue of our generation: privatizing schools by supporting private schools with public funds.

This fundamental issue should not get lost in the din of campaign ads on other topics. With a legal mission to teach the Constitution and the attributes of good citizenship, public schools have been the key institution responsible for perpetuating our democracy. Giving public incentives to attend private and parochial schools will ultimately weaken public schools and destroy the community support that they must have to give all students who show up at the door a quality education. It will accelerate the fragmentation of our society along sectarian lines.

I believe that Indiana’s Constitution got it right in Article 1:”No money shall be drawn from the treasury, for the benefit of any religious or theological institution.” Our public policies must avoid financial entanglements with religious schools.

Advocates for public education who agree with me need to be aware that those supporting private school vouchers believe they are on the brink of success for a goal they have pursued for years. Whether public dollars stay with public schools or will be diverted to private schools will be determined in the all-important November 2nd election. Those who wish to protect public schools from these privatization strategies should actively participate in the election for members of the Indiana House of Representatives. On this crucial issue, the battle lines are clear.

LINK: