>>> A DOZEN YEARS AGO WHEN INDIANA PASSED THE FIRST SCHOOL VOUCHER LAW THE GOAL WAS TO GIVE SOME KIDS A CHANCE TO TRY THEIR FORTUNE AT PRESUMABLY SUPERIOR PRIVATE SCHOOLS.

INITIALLY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY DETERMINED THAT AS MANY AS 7500 VOUCHERS WOULD BETIVE VIRED YOU HAVE AMONG STUDENTS WHO QUALIFY FOR THE FREE AND REDUCED PRICE LUNCH PROGRAM AND B TRIED PUBLIC SCHOOL FOR TWO CONSECUTIVE SEMESTERS.

OVER TIME LAWMAKERS I LIMB FACILITATED THE NUMERICAL CAP AND LOSSENNED THE ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA.

HI I'M JOSH AND ON THIS WEEK'S SHOW WE'LL LOOK IT WOULD PUSH FOR UNIVERSAL VOUCHERS.

THAT IS A PROGRAM IN WHICH THE STATE WOULD HELP PAY FOR ANY STUDENT TO ATTEND ANY PRIVATE SCHOOL.

INDIANA LAWMAKERS, FROM THE STATEHOUSE TO YOUR HOUSE.

A UNIVERSAL VOUCHER PROPOSAL BEING CONSIDER BID THE INDIANA GENERAL ASSEMBLY THIS SESSION WOULD LIKELY DOUBLE THE AMOUNT THAT HOOSIER TAX TAX PAYERS SPEND ON VOUCHERS TO AN ESTIMATED $1.1 BILLION OVER THE COMING YEARS.

SOME SAY IT'S A NECESSARY IN THE MEANTIME IN OUR CHILDREN'S FUTURE.

OPPONENTS SIGH IT WOULD SIGNAL THE END OF PUBLIC EDUCATION AS WE KNOW IT.

JOINING ME TO DEBATE THISH ARE ROBERT BEHNING OF INDIANAPOLIS, THE ARCHITECT OF INDIANA'S SCHOOL CHOICE PROGRAM.

DEMOCRATIC SENATOR SHELLI YODER OF BLOOMINGTON, THE CHAMBER'S ASSISTANT MINORITY LEADER AND A MEMBER OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND CAREER DEVELOPMENT.

BETSY WILEY PRESIDENT AND CEO OF THE INDIANA BASED NONPROFIT AVENUE INDICATING EXPANDED SCHOOL CHOICE AND CHRIS LAGONI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE INDIANA SIGNAL AND RURAL SCHOOLS ASSOCIATION, A KOKOMO BASED ORGANIZATION THAT REPRESENTS MORE THAN 100 SCHOOL DISTRICTS ACROSS THE STATE.

THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE.

BEFORE WE LOOK AHEAD, LET'S LOOK BACK.

I LOVE HISTORY.

2011, THIS WAS YOUR BABY BACK THEN WHEN THIS HUMBLING PROPOSAL WAS PUT TOGETHER, A A, THERE WERE ALL TYPE OF LIMITATIONS.

DID YOU ENVISION WE WOULD BE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION?

>> ACTUALLY I THOUGHT IT MIGHT BE SOONER.

EVERY WASTRIED TO ADVOCATE FOR SCHOOL CHOICE, I ACTUALLY RAN ON THAT PLATFORM WHEN I RAN SO I WAS THRILL #ED WHEN EVERYTHING CAME TOGETHER, WE WORKED WITH GOVERNOR DANIELS, WE CAME INTO MAJORITY SO IT'S BEEN AN AN INCREMENT TALL PROCESS BUT THE SUCCESS OF THE PROGRAM THERE'S BEEN REASONS TO INCREASE.

>> SO IF WE GOT IN A SOMETIME MACHINE AND WENT BACK TO 2011 AND I SAID LOOKFORWARD A DECADE PLUS NOW THIS IS WHAT YOU ENVISIONED.

YOU SAW THE INCREMENTALISM WAS A POLITICAL NECESSITY?

>> CLEARLY.

EVEN GOING BACK TO YOUR COMMENCEMENTS ABOUT 7500, WE CAPPED IT 75 HUB THE FIRST YEARS BUT THAT CAP WAS REMOVED EVENTUALLY, RIGHT AFTER -- >> I THINK THE FIRST YEAR AND CAME OFF THE THIRD YEARI SO IT WAS INCREMENTAL AND IF YOU LOOK IT WOULD HISTORY OF SCHOOL CHOICED THE BEEN INCREMENTAL THROUGHOUT THE.

FROM LEPTO.

>> SENATOR SHELLI YODER YOU WERE NOT IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AT THAT APPOINTMENT BUT URN IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT AT THAT TIME IN MONROE COUNTY SO YOU'VE WATCHEDDED THIS ISSUE.

IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT'S UNFAMILIAR TO YOU, WHAT'S YOUR TALK ABOUT ON THIS SOME WOULD SAY TOO SLOW GROWTH IN THE SCHOOL CHOICE MOVEMENT?

>> I WOULD SAY IN 2011, THE PROPOSAL WAS BASED ON STUDENT NEED TO GIVE FAMILIESES STUDENTS MORE CHOICE.

WHERE WE ARE IN 2023 LOOKING AT THE BUDGET, THAT CHOICE WILL NO LONGER REMAIN WITH STUDENTS OR PARENTS, THAT CHOICE WILL SOLELY REMAIN IN PRIVATE SCHOOLS.

PRIVATE SCHOOLS WE ARE PRETTY MUCH FUNDING THE PRIVATE SCHOOLS TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THE CHOICE ON WHICH STUDENTS THEY WANT TO CHOOSE BECAUSE WITH THE NEW PROPOSED BUDGET, A FAMILY OF NEED HAS TO QUALIFY AND THAT QUALIFICATION MAKING, EARNING FOR A FAMILY OF FOUR, 222 THOUSAND DOLLARS, AND SO THE YOU THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE A CHOICE FOR STUDENTS AND FOR FAMILIES, IT IS NOT.

IT IS GOING TO BE THE CHOICE FOR PRIVATE SCHOOLS TO BE ABLE TO BETTER SELECT HOW A STUDENT LOOKS, HOW THEY PERFORM ATHLETICALLY, ACTUALLY THE CHOICE WILL REMAIN WITH PRIVATE SCHOOLS AND NOT WITH THE STUDENTS OR FAMILIES.

>> WHERE WE'RE GETTING THESE NUMBERS, RIGHT NOW IT'S 300 PERCENT OF THE FEDERAL POVERTY LIMIT.

IT WOULD GO TO 400 PERCENT.

THERE'S A LOT TO DIGEST IN WHAT YOU SAID BUT LET'S GO TO BETSY WILEY.

YOU WERE WORKING FOR THE GOVERNOR IN THEN AND THE GOVERNOR SAID SOCIAL JUSTICE AS COME TO INDIANA.

NOW SHORTLY FAMILIAR HE SAID, YOU KNOW THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE SOME HUGE PHENOMENON, THIS IS GOING TO BE FAIRLY LIMITED.

WE'RE NOT GOING TO SEE THIS UP END INDIANA'S EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM.

HE THOUGHT IT WOULD BE A MODEST EXPERIMENT.

WAS HE WRONG?

>> I DON'T THINK HE WAS WRONG.

>> HE WAS JUST LYING TO US.

>> I THINK IT HAS BEEN FAIRLY MODEST.

WE HAVE FOUR PERCENT OF OUR STUDENTS ON THE VOUCHER PROGRAM TODAY, 53,000 KITS OUT OF 1.1 MILLION SO IT'S A CHOICE FOR SOME FAMILIES AND IT'S PROVIDING A GOOD EDUCATION FOR THOSE KIDS.

AS PARENTS, IS IT THE PANACEA?

DID WE SEE 90 PERCENT OF STUDENTS LEAVE THEIR PUBLIC SCHOOL IN WILL WE IF WE SEE THE LEGISLATION PASS?

NO WE WON'T.

WILL WE SEE INCREMENTAL GROWTH?

ABSOLUTELY.

>> LET ME GET YOUR TAKE THEN.

I'M GUESSING THIS WILL BE LIKE A PING-PONG, PRO, COB, PRO, CON.

>> INDIANA'S VULNERABLE SCHOOLS IS AGAINST THE EXPANDING OF THE VOUCHERS BECAUSE AS WE'VE SEEP IT OVER TIME, OUR SCHOOL AND OUR STUDENT WERE RECEIVING UP TO TEN PERCENT LESS IN FUNDING THAN THEY WERE IN 2009.

THERE WAS A STUDY DONE ON THE 17 BIENNIUM.

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY WASN'T ABLE TO KEEP ONE THE PER STUDENT FUNDING THE BASED ON INFLATION AND COST OF LIVING AND THEIR PER STUDENT FUNDING OVER TIME DECREASED WHEN COMPARED TO WHERE WE WERE IN WESTBOUND.

SO WE DON'T HAVE A BOB WITH PARENT CHOICE, IN OF OUR MEMBERS BENEFIT FROM THE CHOICES YAP HAS PROVIDED BUT WE WANT TO SEE A BULLET THAT'S RISING ALL VOTES WITH THE TIDE AND RIGHT NOW AS THE BUDGET IS FOCUSED ON FOUR PERCENT BUT THEY GET 30 PERCENT OF THE NEW MONEY IN THE BUDGET.

>> AND I STARTED TO USE THE TERM VOUCHER CAN THAT'S CERTAINLY THE SAND THAT WE USE.

DOES IT MATTER TO YOU IN YOUR ORGANIZATION THAT NOW THIS HAS BECOME SOMETHING A LITTLE DIFFERENT?

IT'S A SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM AND THE NOTION THAT IT WOULD BE BASED ON THE EXPANSION OF TEST SAVINGS ACCOUNTS OR IS THAT SEMANTICS?

>> I THINK WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THE EDUCATION SAVINGS ACCOUNTS BECAUSE ALSO THAT'S PHYSICAL CONSERVATIVES WE KNOW THAT IN ORDER TO PROPERLY MONITOR THE PROGRAM WE HAVE HAD TO EXPAND THE ROLE TO HAVE THE TREASURE EASY OFFICE ON THE SPECIAL ED, IT'S LIMITED TO SPECIAL ED IN CURRENT LEGISLATION AND IS THAT REQUIRES A LOT OF OVERSIGHT, SO GOING BACK TO YOUR ANALOGY OF WHAT DID WE SEE 2011, FISCAL CONSERVATIVE IN 2011 SAW THAT WE WOULD HAVE A BILLION DOLLAR PROGRAM THAT ANSWER EBBING PANTED TO THE SIZE OF STATE GOVERNMENT IN ORDER TO MONITOR IT, I THINK THEY WOULD ALSO QUESTION IF IT WAS STILL FISSION KALI CONSERVATIVE.

>> AND I WANT YOU TO RESPOND THIS NOTION THIS ISN'T ABOUT PARENT CHOICE BUT HAS SOMEHOW BECOME SCHOOL CHOICE.

>> IT'S SOMETHING SENATOR YODER WOULD SAY THAT, YESTERDAY WE HAD A HEARING ON THE ADDITIONAL RESOURCES FOR CHARTERS AND IT WAS AMAZING TO SEE THE PARENTS THAT CAME IN WHO TALKED ABOUT THE VALUE OF HAVING SCHOOL CHOICE, WHETHER IT'S CHARTERS, THE TRADITIONAL PUBLIC, THERE'S MORE CHOICE IN TRADITIONAL PUBLIC THAN ANY OTHER CHOICE OR INVOLVE VOUCHERS.

THE REALITY IS PARENTS ARE CHOOSING AND CHRIS WAS IN THE HEARING YESTERDAY, THERE WAS A LOT OF POWERFUL TESTIMONY ABOUT THAT.

I WOULD ALSO SUGGEST IS THAT THAT IF YOU LOOK AT THE WAY THE VOUCHERS -- IT'S ACTUALLY CHOICE SCHOLARSHIP.

FROM THE BEGINNING IT WAS CHOICE SCHOLARSHIP, VOUCHERS IS WHAT WE CALL IT IN THE SHORT-TERM.

THE REALITY IS ONLY 90 PERCENT OF THE STATE GENERAL FUND DOLLARS FOLLOW THAT STUDENT TO SO WE ACTUALLY LEAVE MID TO UPPER IN STATE COFFERS SO WHEN A STUDENT MOVES FROM A TRADITIONAL PUBLIC SCHOOL TO A CHOICE SCHOLARSHIP SCHOOL THE SEDATE IS ACTUALLY SAVING MONEY WHICH IS MORE MONEY THAN WE CAN MAKE AVAILABLE TO TRADITIONAL PUBLIC SCHOOLS SO I WOULD SUGGEST TO REPRESENTATIVE OR SENATOR YODER'S COMMENTS IN REGARDS TO SCHOOLS CHOOSING, REMEMBER A MAJORITY OF THE -- WHICH IS THE OPPONENTS ARGUING, A MAJORITY OF OUR CHOICE SCHOOLS ARE FAITH BASED SCHOOLS AND THEIR MISSION IS TO SERVE THOSE UNDERSERVES.

THEY'RE THOUGHTS OUT THERE SAYING I'LL TAKE YOU BECAUSE YOU'RE THIS OR I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE YOU BECAUSE YOU'RE THAT, THEY'RE TAKING A PREPONDERANCE OF KIDS IN POVERTY.

>>> THE LAW SAYS THEY CAN'T DISCRIMINATE BY WHAT, RACE, GENDER, THE BASICS.

>> EXACTLY.

>> AND I KNOW NOBODY IS GOING TO SAY OF LEARNING DISABILITIES BUT THE CONCERN IS IT'S A MATTER OF SAYING WE DON'T DOCTOR THAT SPECULATION OR THAT PROGRAM.

SO YOU'RE EFFECTIVELY CLOSING THE DOOR ON A STUENT.

>> AND I WOULD ALSO SUGGEST IF THE STATE WANTS TOE TAKE THAT STEP AND MAKE THOSE FUNDS AVAILABLE TO NONPUBLIC SCHOOLS THAT THEY WILL OPEN THEIR DOOR TO EVERYONE.

IT'S REALLY NOT BEEN AN ISSUE OF THE FACT THAT THEY'RE NOT WILLING TO SERVE THEM, IT'S THE FACT THEY DON'T GET THE DOLLARS TO SERVE THOSE KIDS.

>> I SAW YOU LEANING FORWARD.

WHY DOESN'T THAT MAKES SENSE?

>> OF COURSE PARENTS AND STUDENTs ARE GOING TO THINK I HAVE CHOICES BUT WHAT WE'RE SEEING IS THEY DON'T AND THE NUMBERS DOUGHNUTS MATCH THAT CLAIM THAT FAITH BASED SCHOOL ARE REQUIRETIZING NEED, BECAUSE AT AT THE END OF THE DAY US MOVING TO A UNIVERSAL VOUCHER CHOICE PROGRAM, IT WILL BE CHOICES THAT WILL BE PLACES IN PRIVATE SCHOOLS TO MAKE THOSE DECISIONS.

THEY CAN MAKE THE CHOICE ON WHICH STUDENTS WHOSE PARENTS ARE EARNING $222,000 A YEAR SO THAT'S GOING TO BLOTCH THE AMOUNT OF STUDENTS WHO QUALIFY MAKING IT MUCH MORE COMPETITIVE AND MUCH MORE DIFFICULT FOR FAMILIES CAN FOR STUDENTS TO HAVE THAT CHOICE OF WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO GO.

AND I'M SO GLAD THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE 90 PERCENT OF HOOSIER FAMILIES, STUDENTS WHO CHOOSE TO GO TO TRADITIONAL PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

OUR FUNDING, OUR NEW FUNDING SHOULD MIRROR THAT.

WITH SHOULD HAVE 90 PERCENT OF NEW FUNDING FOLLOWING THE 90 PERCENT OF CHILDREN WHO ARE CHOOSING TO ATTEND PUBLIC SCHOOLS BUT THAT IS NOT THE CASE.

>> IN FAIRNESS YOU CAN'T GROW A PROGRAM WITHOUT PUTTING MONEY INTO IT.

IT'S NOT FISCALLY POSSIBLE.

I WOULD STRONGLY SUGGEST -- RIGHT NOW $145,000, YOU'RE NOT HAVING A HUGE IMPACT MOVING IT UP.

MAJORITY OF HOOSIERS DOUGHNUTS EARN 145,000.

>> 154 DO YOU -- >> THE NUMBERS CHANGED BECAUSE OF INFLATION, I THINK IT WAS ORIGINALLY 144.

THE REALITY IS THE BIGGER EXPENSE IS THE PATH WAYS BEING REMOVED T. >> THERE'S NO NUMERICAL CAP ON THE NUMBER OF SCHOLARSHIPS.

>> THERE IS AN INCOME CAP AND IF I'M TALKING UNIVERSAL LET'S TAKE THE CAP OFF AND THEN ANY STUDENT IS ELIGIBLE.

ANY STUDENT IS ELIGIBLE TO WALK INTO A PUBLIC SCHOOL TODAY.

>> RESPECTFULLY THOUGH WE ARE PRETTY MUCH BLOWING THE LID OFF OF NEED.

IF ONLY -- THE 95 PERCENT OF HOOSIER FAMILIES QUALIFY UNDER THE EXPANDED PRIVATE INVOLVER PRACTICAL WHERE A FAMILY OF FOUR CAN EARN $222,000 A YEAR IN ORDER TO QUALIFY I MEAN THAT'S PRETTY MUCH OPENING IT UP TO EVERYONE.

>> THE LEGISLATIVE SERVICINGS AGENCY IN ITS PROJECTIONS TALK ABOUT THE FACT THAT GOING FORWARD THE ESTIMATE IS THAT 90 PERCENT OF THE STUDENTS WHO WOULD BE RECIPIENTS WOULD HAVE GOVERN TO PRIVATE SCHOOL ANYWAY SO HAD WE MOVED ASIDE FROM THE NOTION THAT WE'RE GIVING CHOICE?

USED TO BE YOU HAVE TO GO A FULL YEAR SOMEPLACE BEFORE YOU CAN MAKE THE SWITCH.

NOW THAT WOULD BE OFF THE TABLE.

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE NOTION THAT 90 PERCENT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE PRIVATE SCHOOL ANYWAY HOW ARE WE SAVING THE STATE?

AREN'T WE JUST THROWING MONEY INTO A DIFFERENT POT?

>> I WOULD DISAGREE.

THE CURRENT USERS OF THE PROGRAM ACCORDING TO DOE ARE 80 PISS PERCENT OF THE FAMILY MAKES UNDER A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS SO IT IS STILL -- IT'S HEAVILY MINORITY USED, IT'S HEAVILY LOW INCOME USED SO THAT WOULD BE MY FIRST PLAN IS WHO UTILIZES THE PROGRAM.

IF YOU MAKE IT UNIVERSAL I THINK ALL THOSE PEOPLE ARE TAX PAYERS TO TO REPRESENTATIVE BEHNING'S POINT IF ALL THOSE KIDS, IF EVERY KID THAT IS USING A VOUCHER TODAY WESTERN TO PUBLIC SCHOOL IT WOULD HAVE COST THE STATE $65 MILLION MORE.

>> THAT'S ASSUMING THEY'RE WHAT PRIVATE SCHOOLS DIDN'T EXIST IN THAT SCENARIO.

>> RIGHT, ALL 43,000 DIDN'T GO IT WOULD HAVE COST 65,000-DOLLAR MORE.

WE DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH A 222,000-DOLLAR HOME OR A $20,000 HOME GOING TO PUBLIC SCHOOL AND PAYING WHATEVER AM OF MONEY, $6,800 PER KID BUT WHEN THEY CHOOSE A DIFFERENT EDUCATIONAL MODEL AND GET ON AVERAGE 4,500-DOLLAR VOUCHER OR 5,000-DOLLAR VOUCHER THAT BECOMES A PROBLEM AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT.

>> I THINK THE PROBLEM IS THE BUDGET IS WE HAVE A SIX PERCENT INFLATION EC RATE AND WE'RE LOOKING AT SEVEN PERCENT GROWTH FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL STUDENTS.

IT'S GOING TO PUT A LOT OF PRESSURE ON COMMUNITIES TO MAKE UP FOR THE THE FUNDING THE GAP AND THAT PRESSURE WILL COME IN THE THE FORM OF REFERENDUMS SO LOCAL TAXPAYERS WILL BE ASKED TO MAYBE UP THE DIFFERENCE AND THAT'S PUTTING PRESSURE ON LOCAL TAXPAYERS >>> I'VE SEEN THE NUMBERS AND I THINK THEY CAME OUT FROM YOUR CAULK SENATOR, YES FOUR PERCENT THEORETICALLY IN THE FIRST YEAR AND ONE PERCENT AND CHANGE BUTTY SINCE THERE'S A COMPLEXITY FACTOR -- I SAW 3-FOURTHS OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS COULD SEE A NET LOSS.

>> AND TO-30S OF OUR INTERESTINGAL PUBLIC SCHOOL WILL GET LESS THAN FIVE PERCENT THE FIRST YEAR, BUT I WANT TO RESPOND, THE NUMBERS DON'T ADD UP, WHAT YOU WERE CLAIMING ABOUT PRIVATE SCHOOL BEING A CHOICE FOR LOW INCOME STUDENTS.

I THINK IF WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT NEED BASED FUNDING FOR STUDENTS GETTING THE BEST EDUCATION THAT THEY CAN, THEN THAT DEFINITION SHOULD BE THE SAME, BUT GIVE ME A MOMENT TO EXPLAIN HOW IN THE THREE DIFFERENT BUCKETS DOCTORSAL PUBLIC SCHOOL WERE DEFINE A FAMILY OF NEED, A FAMILY OF FOUR MIXING $36,000 OR LESS, THEN THAT STUDENT IS IDENTIFIED AS A STUDENT IN NEED.

$36,000 FOR A FAMILY OF FOUR.

LET'S TALK ABOUT PRE-K, MY WAY WHICH WE KNOW THAT INVESTMENT IS SO GOOD AND IMPORTANT FOR INDIANA.

BUT EVEN IN PRE-K, THAT FAMILY IN NEED WOULD BE IDENTIFIED AS MAKING $77,000 OR LESS.

FOR VOUCHERS, FOR PRIVATE SCHOOL FUNNELING WE HAVE DEFIED THAT A FAMILY OF FOUR IS MAKING 222,000-DOLLARS.

SO THIS JUST -- >> THIS GETS TO THE NOTION, IS IT ABOUT NEED OR IS IT SOMETHING MORE NOW?

THE SUGGESTION IS THIS IS ABOUT -- >> I WAS JUST COMMENTING ON YOUR COMMENT THAT THIS IS GIVING ACCESS TO LOW INCOME FAMILIES TO BE ABLE TO GO TO A PRIVATE SCHOOL AND I WOULD ARGUE THIS IS -- UNIVERSAL VOUCHERS WILL REMOVE THAT OPPORTUNITY BECAUSE IT GIVES ALL THE POWER FOR A PRIVATE SCHOOL TO DECIDE BECAUSE MORE FAMILIES PRETTY MUCH ALL FAMILIES WILL BE ABLE TO MEET FOR THOSE SLOTS IN PRIVATE SCHOOLS AND THE FALLS IN NEED WILL HAVE TO COMPETE ALONGSIDE EVERY OTHER FAMILY IN INDIANA.

>> IF THIS IS INCREMENTAL AND IT HAS BEEN TO THIS POINT AND I THINK BOTH HAVE INDICATED THIS, WHAT IS NIRVANA FOR YOU?

WHEN YOU'RE DONE, MAYBE THIS IS LIKE THE INTERSTATE SYSTEM.

IT'S NEVER GOING TO BE DONE, BUT BETSY WHAT DOES IT LOOK LIKE WHEN YOU'RE SATISFIED?

WHEN YOU SAY I CAN DISBAN THIS OPERATION?

>> SURE, IS FOR ME NIRVANA COULD LOOK LIKE EVERY OPTION IS AVAILABLE TO EVERY FAMILY IN THIS STATE OF INDIANA, UNIFORM CHOICE FOR EVERYBODY, PUBLIC TO PUBLIC TRANSFER, CHARTERS.

>> YOU WOULD SIZE HERE'S THE CASH, WE'RE PUTTING IT IN THE KIDS' BACKPACK FIGURATIVELY.

>> SO FOR ME THE WAY YOU WOULD MEASURE IT IS PEOPLE KIND OF DO THIS STUDY BUT ASKING PARENTS IF THERE WERE NO BARRIERS WHERE WOULD YOU SEND YOUR KID?

WHAT KIND OF LEARNING ENVIRONMENT WOULD YOU LIKE YOUR KID IN AND WHEN THOSE MATCH THAT'S NIRVANA.

WHEN EVERY FAMILY IS ABLE TO GET THEIR KID IN THE EDUCATIONAL ENVIRONMENT THEY THINK WORKS BEST FOR THEM THAT'S WHEN WE WOULD SAY MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

>> CHRIS, IS THAT NIRVANA?

>> IF WE HAVE THE FISCAL MEANS TO MAKE SURE THAT -- >> PHILOSOPHICALLY YOU'RE OKAY WITH THAT.

>> IN 2008 THE INDIANA GENERAL ASSEMBLY LOWERED PROPERTY TAXES AND SAID THEY WOULD TAKE ON THE FUNDING OF COMMON SCHOOLS.

THAT DEFINITION HAS BEEN BROADENED BUT IF WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THE FISCAL NEEDS TO OFFER THE EDUCATION IS PRESENT ACROSS THE STATE OF INDIANA, THE PRESSURE OF EXPANDING VOUCHERS HAS LIMITED OUR ABILITY TO FUND ALL SCHOOLS IS IF MONEY WAS NO ON THE, SURE BUT 500 MILLION IS A BIG NUMBER.

>> JUST TO BE CLEAR, SO MONEY IF THAT'S OFF THE TABLE ARE YOU CONCERNED ABOUT THE NOTION OF ACCOUNTABILITY?

ARE THOSE SECONDARY CONCERNS?

>> OUR LEGISLATIVE AGENDA IS THAT ALL SCHOOLS SHOWN HELD TO THE SAME ACCOUNTABILITY.

>> PUBLIC COMMENTARY -- >> THAT WOULD BE NIRVANA, IS THE SAME ACCOUNTABILITY FOR ALL SCHOOLS, SO PARENTS AND STUDENTS REALLY DO KNOW WHAT THEY'RE GETTING, BUT -- IS.

>>> PRIVATE AND PAROCHIAL ARE PASSE, -- >> I WOULD SAY NIRVANA WOULD BE HALTING THIS VOUCHER I THINK PANGS.

IT'S JUST FUNDING THE PRIVATE SCHOOLS BUT NOT PROVIDING MORE CHOICE SO HALTING THE VOUCHER EXPANSION, AND THE OTHER PIECE WOULD BE LETTING NEW FUNDING FOLLOW WHERE 90 PERCENT OF HOOSIER CHILDREN AND FAMILIES ARE DECIDING TO SEND THEIR KIDS.

>> THE PERCENTAGE WON'T GO UP IF THEY'RE MADE MORE ATTRACTIVE?

>> IT'S 90 PERCENT NOW -- [SPEAKING SIMULTANEOUSLY.]

>>> NIRVANA IS THAT ALL HOOSIER KIDS ARE NOURISHING.

THE PARENTS HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SEND THEIR KIDS TO A SCHOOL THAT BEST NEEDS THEIR NEEDS.

WE KNOW A MAJORITY OF PARENTS ARE CHOOSING TRADITIONAL PUBLIC SCHOOL.

I THINK THAT'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE THE CASE IN GENERAL BUT I AM AN ADVOCATE OF UNIVERSAL ES A's, WHERE I HAND YOU A DEBIT CARD, AND AS OUR TECHNOLOGY IS GOING TO ADVANCE THERE'S GOING TO BE THINGS THAT I MAY DECIDE I WANT ANY SON OR DAUGHTER OR GRANDCHILD TO TAKE A COURSE FROM ONE ENTITY THAT MAY BE THE BEST AT PROVIDING MATH AND GOING SOMEWHERE ELSE.

>> OR GOING TO SOCCER CAMP IF YOU THINK YOU'RE AN ASPIRING SOCCER STAR.

>> I MEAN YOU CAN MIRROR THAT IT'S STRUCTURED SO THEY'RE USING IT FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES BUT I DO BELIEVE -- I THINK THE REALITY IS WHAT I'M ADVOCATING FOR IS STUDENT SUCCESS AND CLEARLY TODAY WITH 38 PERCENT OF OUR KIDS PASSING BOTH ASSOCIATIONS OF I LEARN WE ARE NOT WHERE WE NEED TO BE.

>> YOU SAID A MEMO AGO YOU SUGGESTEDDED A HUNDRED PERCENT WOULDN'T BE A DISAPPOINT BUT WHAT'S YOUR PROJECTION OF EQUILIBRIUM.

>> I THINK FOR CHOICE TO WORK EVERYONE HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO GO TO THE SCHOOL IS THAT BEST MEETINGS THEIR NEEDS AND NOT PUT PUTTING CATCHES IN PLACE, I THINK ALL THE RESTRICTIONS PUT IMPED.

S TO PROVIDEING CHOICE.

>> I WANT TO SAY THE THAT MANY FEBRUARY OF THIS AREA THE CENTER FOR EDUCATION POLICY DID AN AN AN INCREDIBLE STUDY JUST LOOKING ACADEMICS AND OUR VOUCHER PROGRAM IS NOT PROVIDING -- >> THOSE SUCCESSES FOR STUDENTS IF THAT IS TRULY -- >> I TOLD YOU IT WAS GOING TO GO FAST FOLKS.

AGAIN MY GUESTS HAVE BEEN REPUBLICAN RIFF ROBERT BEHNING, DEMOCRATIC SENATOR SHELLI YODER OF BLOOD ALCOHOLLING TONKER BETSY WILEY AND CHRIS LAGONI, EXECUTIVE DIRECT OR OF THE INDIANA SMALL AND RURAL SCHOOLS ASSOCIATION.

AND TIME NOW FOR OUR WEEKLY CONVERSATION WITH EGG FEIGENBAUM ED FEIGENBAUM.

ED, WHERE DOES THIS GO FROM HERE?

>> OBVIOUSLY TO THE SENATE AND AFTER IT GOES THROUGH THE HOUSE IT'S GOING TO GO BACK TO THE SENATE BUT THE BIG THING IS THE BUTT BUDGET AND THERE'S GOING TO BE AN ABILITY FOR EITHER SIDE TO FIND AN EXCUSE TO FUND MORE OR FUND LESS BUT PARTICULARLY THE SENATE REPUBLICANS ARE SKEPTICAL ABOUT EXPANDING THE CHARTER MONEY AND IF WE SEE THE FISCAL CRISIS WE'RE IN, THE BANK ISSUES, THE INTERNATIONAL GLOBAL ISSUES ARE POINT US TOWARD A RECESSION YOU MAY SEE SOME SENATORS SAYING YES, I KIND OF AGREE WITH THE CONCEPT BUT I THINK WE NEED TO CUT BACK AND ALL THIS MONEY IS THE PLACE WE CAN RAMP RATCHET THINGS BACK.

>> IF WE DID PULL BACK THAT POLITICAL COVER WOULD WE -- SOME PEOPLE CONCERNED ABOUT FINANCES AND OTHERS SAYING THIS IS A FILL FILL ISSUE.

>> IT GIVES COVER FOR THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE A PHILOSOPHICAL PROBLEM WITH IT BECAUSE OF WHERE THE MONEY IS GOING IN GENERAL OR BECAUSE THEY DON'T THINK THERE'S SUFFICIENT TRANSPARENCY, BUT AT THE SAME TIME THE SENATOR HAS A TRADITION OF SAYING IF I GIVE YOU EVERYTHING YOU WANT IS IT OTHER THAN IF I GIVE THE OTHER SIDE WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR, SO THERE'S A PRECEDENT FOR MORE MONEY GOING TO THE VOUCHERS BUT AGAIN I THINK THE FORECAST IS GOING TO BE THE CATALYST IS GOING TO BE GIVING THE ANTI-CHARLOTTE FORCES THE ABILITY TO SAY LET'S CUT BACK.

>> AND THEY'RE TRYING TO BUTTONHOLE LAWMAKERS, DOES ANY OF THAT MATTER OR REALLY TO YOUR POINT DOES THIS JUST COME DOWN TO THE REVENUE UPDATE AND ANYTHING ELSE IS SORT OF POSTURING?

>> BOTH SIDES ARE DUG IN AND WE'RE LOOKING FOR EXCUSES.

>> VERY GOOD, ED AS ALWAYS APPRECIATE YOUR IN SLIGHT SITE.

INDIANA HAS A SURPLUS OF MONEY BUT SOME WARN OF AN IMPENDING DOWNTURN IN THE ECONOMY.

WHAT'S IT MEAN FOR YOU ON THE NEXT LAWMAKERS.

THAT CONCLUDES THIS EDITION OF INDIANA LAWMAKERS.

I'M JON SCHWANTES.

I THANK YOU FOR JOINING US AND I INVITED YOU TO WITHDREW WFYI.ORG FOR MORE STATEHOUSE NEWS.

UNTIL NEXT WEE