ILNews

Vouchers validated, program scope at issue

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

School-choice vouchers are constitutional, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled recently, but even opponents found cover in the unanimous opinion upholding the nation’s most expansive program.

“Even though the state Supreme Court said … (vouchers are) constitutional, they said it’s not a ruling on the merits of vouchers,” said Teresa Meredith, vice president of the Indiana State Teachers Association.
 

Meredith-Teresa.jpg Meredith

Indeed, justices made that position clear on Page 1 of the landmark 22-page ruling. “Whether the Indiana program is wise educational or public policy is not a consideration germane to the narrow issues of Indiana constitutional law that are before us,” Chief Justice Brent Dickson wrote. “Our individual policy preferences are not relevant. In the absence of a constitutional violation, the desirability and efficacy of school choice are matters to be resolved through the political process.”

Meredith said her takeaway from the ruling mirrors what she might tell her public elementary school students in Shelbyville: “Just because the law says you can do something or some document says it’s OK doesn’t mean you should or that it’s good practice.

“Indiana voters believe in their public schools,” she said. “For the most part, they’re pretty happy with them.”

That’s been the message supporters of public education have taken to the Statehouse and to the court of public opinion in an effort to block expansion of the school Choice Scholarship Program since the justices’ March 26 decision in Teresa Meredith, et al. v. Mike Pence, et al., 49S00-1203-PL-172.

Meredith was among a dozen teachers, clergy and parents of students in public and private schools who sued in July 2011. The Supreme Court rejected plaintiffs’ claims that the voucher program violates liberties in the state Constitution regarding education and religion.

Justices also rejected plaintiff arguments that voucher programs provide direct funding to religious activities in many schools that accept vouchers. “We disagree because the principal actors and direct beneficiaries under the voucher program are neither the State nor program-eligible schools, but lower-income Indiana families with school-age children,” Dickson wrote.

Gov. Mike Pence hailed the ruling. “I welcome the Indiana Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Indiana’s school choice program. I have long believed that parents should be able to choose where their children go to school, regardless of their income. Now that the Indiana Supreme Court has unanimously upheld this important program, we must continue to find ways to expand educational opportunities for all Indiana families.”


bosma-brian-mug Bosma

House Speaker Brian Bosma, R-Indianapolis, said the ruling “is clearly a victory for the 9,400 low-income students whose families have selected a school of choice through Indiana’s education scholarship program. It is also a victory for every Hoosier that supports school choice as a means of making every traditional public, private and charter school compete to give the very best education to their students.

“We will continue the fight to make Indiana’s public, private and charter schools the very best in the nation,” Bosma said.

ISTA, which provided attorneys who argued the case before the justices, hasn’t formally decided whether there might be an avenue to challenge vouchers in federal court, Meredith said, but she believes it’s unlikely. “I’m not sure we’re going to pursue that at this time,” she said.

School-choice programs have been upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States. In 5-4 opinions, justices in 2011 upheld an Arizona tax-credit voucher system and in 2002 affirmed an Ohio system granting vouchers to certain Cleveland students.

Shortly after the Indiana Supreme Court’s voucher opinion came down, proponents at the Statehouse used momentum from the decision to advance a proposal to expand vouchers. House Bill 1003 moved to the full Senate, but not before opponents said the unknown costs and impacts on public school funding amounted to a fiscal cliff for the state and a bailout of private religious schools. There are also questions about the veracity of the A through F school-grading system used to identify failing schools where students are eligible for vouchers.

Voucher opponents cited momentum of their own, pointing to the 2012 Hoosier Survey by the Bowen Center for Public Affairs at Ball State University that shows a 6-percentage-point drop in support for expanding vouchers in just one year. The Bowen Center reported that support for expanding vouchers stands at 28 percent, with 31 percent opposing expansion. The largest number of respondents had no opinion.

The Senate Tax and Fiscal Policy Committee voted 8-4 to advance the bill on April 2, but several Republican backers acknowledged reservations. At least one said before moving the bill that he reserved the right to vote against it in the full Senate.


Skinner-Tim.jpg Skinner

“I feel like we’re jumping off the fiscal cliff,” said Sen. Tim Skinner, D-Terre Haute, before joining other Democrats who voted against the bill. Skinner was among several who noted the Legislative Services Agency said the cost of the proposed Choice Scholarship expansion was indeterminable but could be significant.

Skinner said the expansion of vouchers for a few thousand students will come at the expense of more than 1 million public school students. He urged Republicans to look at the lack of reliable cost estimates from a viewpoint of fiscal conservatism.

Before moving HB 1003, the committee passed an amendment authorizing a study committee on vouchers and increasing the amount of money guaranteed to schools that accept Choice Scholarships in the next two years. Vouchers provide $4,500 per student, but the bill as amended increases funding by $100 annually for the next two school years.

Estimated costs of the proposed voucher expansion varied wildly, ranging from $7 million to $200 million. Sen. Greg Taylor, D-Indianapolis, said moving the bill with so little knowledge of the impact showed “a lack of respect for what Hoosiers want.”

But voucher advocates said the program expansion will improve schools and educational choice and argued that savings in the expense of educating voucher recipients are reinvested in public education.

Ethan Birch of Fort Wayne testified, even as he is undergoing chemotherapy treatments. Birch said his son, Keithan, 11, receives a choice scholarship and is thriving at Lutheran South Unity in Fort Wayne. Birch said he and his son are cancer survivors, and he testified that even though the family has to pay a portion of Keithan’s school bill, vouchers make it possible.

“I still want to provide the very best for my children,” Birch said.

Supporters of public education said uncertain costs and impact are concerning.

“Should we possibly just stop a moment to evaluate where we are?” asked Randy Borror, a former lawmaker now with Bose Public Affairs Group who lobbies for Fort Wayne Community Schools, the largest public school district in the state.

Borror said 12 percent of all students receiving vouchers are in the Fort Wayne district, and that 53 percent are from the 10 largest districts in Indiana. “It’s enormous for those top 10,” he said.

Joel Hand, general counsel and lobbyist for the Indiana Coalition for Public Education, said vouchers were presented to the public as introducing competition and saving taxpayer dollars. He noted about 60 percent of vouchers are received by Catholic schools, amounting to an annual subsidy of about $22 million, and asked, “Is this really about competition, or is this about a bailout for these private, religious schools?”•

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 Indiana Lawyer 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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Applause, applause, applause ..... but, is this duty to serve the constitutional order not much more incumbent upon the State, whose only aim is to be pure and unadulterated justice, than defense counsel, who is also charged with gaining a result for a client? I agree both are responsible, but it seems to me that the government attorneys bear a burden much heavier than defense counsel .... "“I note, much as we did in Mechling v. State, 16 N.E.3d 1015 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied, that the attorneys representing the State and the defendant are both officers of the court and have a responsibility to correct any obvious errors at the time they are committed."

  2. Do I have to hire an attorney to get co-guardianship of my brother? My father has guardianship and my older sister was his co-guardian until this Dec 2014 when she passed and my father was me to go on as the co-guardian, but funds are limit and we need to get this process taken care of quickly as our fathers health isn't the greatest. So please advise me if there is anyway to do this our self or if it requires a lawyer? Thank you

  3. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  4. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  5. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

ADVERTISEMENT