Claire McInerny, writing for StateImpact Indiana, has an article about a study done by Indiana University’s Center for Evaluation & Education Policy. The study is entitled, “Follow the Money: A Comprehensive Review of the Funding Mechanisms of Voucher Programs in Six Cases (pdf).” Indiana’s voucher program is compared to those in Ohio, Wisconsin, Arizona, D.C., and Louisiana. McInerny writes:
CEEP researcher Molly Stewart says the report found that Indiana had by far the largest number of students attending private schools using state money that had never attended a public school in the first place.
“More than 50 percent of current voucher recipients in Indiana have not attended a public school in the past,” Stewart says. “That is a huge number.”
Stewart says this number is also so large compared to the other states because Indiana doesn’t have a cap on how many vouchers it gives out. The only limit that exists in the Indiana program comes from available spots in private schools.
According to the report, “in 2014–2015, approximately 80 percent of new students in the Indiana program had no record of attending an Indiana public school.” Indiana, unlike the other states, also does not have fiscal accountability or audit requirements for voucher funds.
Aw, what are data when you have ideology? And what’s wrong with a state giveaway with no fiscal accountability or audit requirements when you can support it with ideology from adults who can hysterically scream their support for the program? This, of course, may cause one to be cynical, living in the best of all possible worlds, Indiana.
hi Stuart . Who needs data when you got votes. That voucher money sure gets around. Bishop Dwenger in Fort Wayne, little notre dame to all the wannabees, installed an artificial turf practice field late in the summer. That will sure show those public school kids who is smarter.
Artificial turf fields … everyone I’ve talked to who works at a school says they’re much more practical and needed than the luxury they appear to be. In large part, it means all sports at the school (not just football) can use the field and they don’t have to restrict the use of the field to “save” the grass. Example – you can use a wet artificial turf field and not worry about ruining it for a month afterwards.
Due to various restrictions on expenditures of public funds (usually state imposed), funds available for capital improvements are often not available to fund operational needs. So, when a school has nice facilities but does not have enough teachers, you can’t necessarily conclude that the school is merely being frivolous.
Can’t mix capital expenditures with general fund, but curious people should look at what general fund money goes to. Not that spending money on teachers is a bad thing for a school district, but a huge percentage goes for teacher salaries relative to the amount spent by businesses with comparative budgets. That means it’s often very difficult to implement new and innovative programs, and the poorer the district, the higher the percentage, which means that the poor districts that really need innovative programs don’t have the money to do it. if you know a superintendent, ask him/her what percentage of the general fund he/she has to implement different projects. Be prepared for a shock, and you will get a look that combines frustration, anger and resignation, but that’s what happens when the state strangles a school district.