Tag: complicates

  • Shortage of Rural Private Schools Complicates Indiana’s Voucher Expansion – The 74

    Shortage of Rural Private Schools Complicates Indiana’s Voucher Expansion – The 74


    Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    Sitting on the Kentucky border, the Christian Academy of Indiana draws students from 56 different ZIP codes in southern Indiana. Some come from as far as 30 miles away and live in counties without private schools.

    Families in those distant communities make the drive every day — sometimes carpooling — because they’re drawn to the school’s environment and extracurriculars, and especially its Christian teaching, said Lorrie Baechtel, director of admissions for the school, which is part of a three-school network in Indiana and Kentucky.

    “There are lots of good public school options in Indiana. Families come to our Indiana campus more for that mission,” Baechtel said.

    The school’s enrollment has boomed in the last four years, driven in part by the expansion of the Choice Scholarship, Indiana’s signature voucher program. That’s made tuition more affordable, Baechtel said. More than 1,200 students attended in 2024-2025, up from around 700 in 2021-22.

    That reflects a statewide trend: Voucher use has surged in recent years as Indiana lawmakers loosened eligibility requirements. In 2026, the program will open to all families, regardless of income.

    But the Christian Academy’s ability to attract students from far away tells another story too. Even as vouchers have become more accessible, Indiana’s rural students aren’t using them at the same rate as their urban and suburban peers. That’s in part because one-third of counties don’t have a private school that accepts vouchers within their borders, and distance is a factor in parents’ decisions on school choice.

    The result is that students who live closer to an urban center — which typically have one or more voucher-accepting private schools — may use vouchers at rates up to 30 percentage points higher than those for students who live in a neighboring district.

    That also means rural families may be at a significant disadvantage when the state opens the Choice Scholarship to all, and when private school scholarships funded by new federal tax credits also begin to roll out in 2027.

    “If there are no schools there for you to attend it’s unlikely it’s going to be all that useful for you,” said Jon Valant, director of the Brown Center on Education Policy at the Brookings Institution.

    More than that, public education advocates say splitting state school funding with vouchers leaves less for the rural public schools these students do attend.

    “We’re making the policy choice to fund a lot more choices than we used to,” said Chris Lagoni, executive director of the Indiana Small and Rural Schools Association, which represents public schools. “We’re inviting more and more folks to Sunday dinner. It’s a little bit of a bigger meal, but a lot more guests.”

    But the state’s Republican lawmakers have dismissed the fears of a hit to public rural schools as a result of vouchers, saying that rural voters support choice and parents want educational options — whether that’s private, charter, or traditional public schools.

    Meanwhile, school choice advocates say the latest expansion of the Choice Scholarship, along with a growing preference for smaller learning environments and the rise of voucher-accepting online schools, could mean more private school access for rural areas in the near future.

    “I think we’re best when we have a robust ecosystem of private and public options,” said Eric Oglesbee of the Drexel Fund, a nonprofit venture philanthropy organization that funds new private schools in Indiana and throughout the U.S.

    Location matters in accessing a private school

    Across the state, around 76,000 students received vouchers for the 2024-25 school year — an increase of about 6,000 students from the year before. The program cost the state $497 million last year, and the average voucher recipient came from a household with just over $100,000 in income.

    But around one-third of Indiana counties don’t have voucher-accepting private schools within their borders, according to a Chalkbeat analysis of state data, which also shows that voucher use is lower in rural areas than urban ones.

    Voucher use can shift dramatically even between nearby areas. For example, around 16% of students who reside in the Madison school district in southern Indiana use vouchers, but that rate drops to as low as 1% in nearby districts that are more rural. Similar trends hold in other areas of the state, like Indianapolis, Evansville, Fort Wayne, and South Bend.

    Location matters because driving distance has been shown to be a factor in how parents choose a school.

    In a 2024 survey of parent preferences by EdChoice, an Indianapolis-based group that supports vouchers, around half of parents said they would drive a max of 15 minutes for their children “to attend a better school.” Just over a quarter said they would drive no more than 20 minutes, and the final quarter said 30 minutes would be their max.

    Concerns about this issue have persisted in the state for years. Alli Aldis of the advocacy group EdChoice pointed to a 2018 report from her organization that called areas of rural Indiana as “schooling deserts.” It estimated that in the 2017-18 school year, around 3% of Indiana students, many in rural counties, lived more than 30 minutes from a charter, magnet, or voucher-accepting private school.

    Starting a new school anywhere, but particularly in a rural area, comes with challenges like finding a building, said Oglesbee of the Drexel Fund.

    A 2023 Drexel Fund report found that facilities in the state are “inadequate to meet the needs of new entrants to the market.” Though the report notes that real estate is both affordable and available, there are no public sources of facilities funding, and surplus facilities are not available to private schools.

    But new laws in Indiana have the potential to change that. House Enrolled Act 1515 established voluntary school facility pilot programs open to both public and private schools to “allow for additional flexibility and creativity in terms of what is considered a school facility,” like colocating with schools, government entities, and community organizations.

    Oglesbee said the organization is fielding an explosion of interest from potential new private schools in Indiana, possibly as a latent result of the 2023 expansion to voucher eligibility, which made the program nearly universal.

    School succeeds ‘if the community asks for it’

    Other challenges to opening a private school include hiring staff and recruiting students, which can be a particular issue in rural areas with both fewer children and licensed teachers, advocates said.

    Opening a school also requires a team of people with both education and business experience, Oglesbee said. And they’re more likely to succeed if they have roots in the community they hope to serve.

    “I see less of the ‘if you build it, they will come’ idea,” Oglesbee said. “A school is successful if the community asks for it.”

    At a recent conservative policy conference, Indiana House Speaker Todd Huston said rural Indiana communities were “super excited” for school choice, and noted that no Republican lawmaker had been beaten in a primary for supporting the policy.

    But Indiana voters haven’t voted on school vouchers, and don’t have a legal avenue to overturn the policy, said Chris Lubienski of the Center for Evaluation and Education Policy at Indiana University. Last year, voters in Kentucky and Colorado rejected ballot measures in favor of school choice, while Nebraska voters partially repealed a state-funded scholarship program.

    “There’s resistance: ‘Why do I want to have my taxes fund a program I can’t use?’” Lubienski said.

    In rural areas, support for school choice may actually mean support for transfers between public school districts, said Lagoni.

    Ultimately, the Rural Schools Association believes any school receiving state dollars should be subject to the same expectations of transparency and accountability, Lagoni said.

    Asked about concerns that rural students often have difficulty using vouchers, Huston said he expects voucher usage to continue to grow once the program becomes universal in 2026-27.

    “We want to make sure our policies align with what works best for families,” Huston said.

    Vouchers add to financial stress for rural schools

    With more school options in Indiana, downward pressure on local tax revenue, and declining population, rural public schools feel pressure to compete. Sometimes that means closing and consolidating schools.

    Vigo County schools recently announced plans to close two rural elementary schools as part of a plan to renovate facilities and offer more programming. The school corporation’s enrollment has declined slightly, due in part to an overall decline in the county’s total population, said spokesperson Katie Shane.

    More students who reside in the district are using vouchers, although they’re not the biggest reason for the district’s falling enrollment. While 429 students used vouchers to attend private schools last school year, an increase from 252 the year before, around 870 Vigo students transferred to another public school district in the fall of the 2024-25 school year. That reflects a statewide trend.

    Without their nearest public elementary schools, students may have to travel by bus for half an hour or more to the nearest school, according to community members who have started a petition to save one of the two schools marked for closure, Hoosier Prairie Elementary School.

    “Hoosier Prairie isn’t just about going to school,” said Shyann Koziatek, an educational assistant at the school who also signed the petition to stop its closure. “Kids love to learn and love the routine we have.”

    Rural schools also often function as large area employers and drivers of the economy.

    “Schools are often the center and identity of the community, how people view who they are,” Lubienski said. “You go and cheer on your football team, it’s where you put on your school play.”

    But private schools can serve the same role, choice advocates say.

    “If people have stronger educational options, more choices, that only strengthens the community,” said Aldis of EdChoice.

    Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools. This story was originally published by Chalkbeat. Sign up for their newsletters at ckbe.at/newsletters.


    Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    Source link

  • Speech is not a crime — even if it complicates ICE’s job

    Speech is not a crime — even if it complicates ICE’s job

    While I was driving down I-95 yesterday, a notification popped up on Google Maps: “Police ahead.” I eased my foot off the gas. Sure enough, a minute later I passed a cruiser parked in the median, radar aimed at oncoming traffic. I paid it forward by tapping “Still there” on Maps.

    Did I commit a crime? Did Google?

    No. Google simply provided a tool for sharing publicly observable information. I used it, just like millions of drivers do every day. That’s speech, and the First Amendment protects it. 

    None of that changes if you swap out highway patrol for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). But the Trump administration sees it differently.

    A new iPhone app called ICEBlock lets users report sightings of ICE activity and receive alerts about the agency’s presence within a 5-mile radius. The app’s website says:

    ICE has faced criticism for alleged civil rights abuses and failures to adhere to constitutional principles and due process, making it crucial for communities to stay informed about its operations. 

    The app also warns users not to use it “for the purposes of inciting violence or interfering with law enforcement.”

    After CNN reported on ICEBlock Monday, Trump administration officials claimed the app put ICE agents in danger and threatened to prosecute not only the app’s developer, but also … CNN. Border czar Tom Homan called on the Department of Justice to investigate whether the network had “crossed that line of impeding federal law enforcement officers.” 

    The next day, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem said her agency was “working with the Department of Justice” to see if they could prosecute CNN for its coverage of the app. President Trump went further, adding CNN “may be prosecuted also for having given false reports on the attack in Iran.” He made similar threats to sue The New York Times over its coverage.

    At the risk of stating the obvious, CNN’s routine reporting on ICEBlock is constitutionally protected. Even if the app itself were illegal, which it’s not, the press still has a right to report on it as a matter of public interest.

    Consider the extensive reporting on the notorious “open-air drug market” in Philadelphia’s Kensington neighborhood. That journalism isn’t illegal just because it might tip off someone about where to get fentanyl.

    By the administration’s logic, not just CNN, but anyone who speaks publicly about ICEBlock has committed a crime. Right-leaning outlets have covered the app, too. Prosecuting them for raising public awareness of the app would be just as unconstitutional. Ironically, the administration’s censorial threats are almost certainly doing more to amplify the app than CNN’s initial report did. The president’s team should look up the Streisand effect.

    This episode is just the latest example of the administration trying to stretch the meaning of “obstruction” to cover nearly any speech that might complicate immigration enforcement. Back in February, Homan asked the Department of Justice to investigate Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for “impeding our law enforcement efforts” by releasing a webinar and flyer that reminded people of their constitutional rights when interacting with ICE. 

    Informing the public that they don’t have to consent to warrantless searches might make ICE’s job more difficult, but that doesn’t strip the speech of constitutional protection. It’s as absurd as claiming a police officer interferes with the district attorney’s job by telling a suspect he has the right to remain silent. 

    As FIRE explained at the time, the First Amendment protects a significant amount of expression, including “providing information about the presence of law enforcement officers.”

    Of course, there are narrow and carefully defined exceptions to the First Amendment. True threats aren’t protected. Nor is incitement. But speech qualifies as incitement only if the speaker intends to provoke immediate unlawful action and their speech is likely to provoke it. That’s a very high bar. Simply noting the presence of law enforcement in a particular location or talking about an app that facilitates that speech doesn’t come close. 

    It’s possible to imagine scenarios where speech might cross that line. If a hostile crowd gathered near ICE agents and someone with a megaphone called on them to attack, that would likely qualify as incitement. But that’s not what we’re dealing with here. 

    There are also circumstances in which helping someone evade law enforcement is a crime. You can’t lawfully harbor a fugitive or physically interfere with officers performing their duties. And the Supreme Court has held the First Amendment does not protect speech “used as an integral part of conduct in violation of a valid criminal statute.” Consider a lookout who warns accomplices during a robbery that police are approaching. That person is intentionally working with specific individuals to carry out a specific unlawful act. The speech isn’t general or political. It’s instrumental to the commission of the crime and is not protected.

    What is protected under the First Amendment is sharing publicly observable information about what government agents are doing in public — or providing the means to do so with a tool like ICEBlock — especially when that speech is tied to political activism. A federal appeals court recently upheld that principle in a case involving a man standing on a sidewalk with a sign that read “Cops Ahead.” The court found his sign, an analog version of the police alerts on Google Maps and Waze, was protected by the First Amendment. 

    It’s absolutely critical to maintain precise, narrow standards that prevent the government from expanding its power to regulate speech and suppress dissent. When officials blur the line between obstructing justice and merely speaking about public law enforcement activity, they put core First Amendment freedoms at risk.

    But let’s step back and remember the administration is not only claiming ICEBlock is illegal, but also suggesting that reporting on it is a criminal offense. Just as baseless is the president’s threat to prosecute and/or sue CNN and The New York Times over their coverage of the bombing of Iran. After the U.S. military struck Iran’s nuclear sites, both outlets reported on a preliminary assessment from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) that contradicted Trump’s claim that the sites were “completely and totally obliterated.” 

    Reporting the government’s own findings about a major military action is not a crime — it’s protected by the First Amendment as well as vital to an informed citizenry. Again, this isn’t a close call.

    In New York Times v. United States, the Supreme Court rejected the government’s attempt to block the press from publishing the Pentagon Papers — a classified history of U.S. involvement in Vietnam — despite the government’s claims that it would harm national security. 

    Trump’s issue with CNN and The New York Times isn’t even about national security. He’s upset that the DIA report undercut his narrative. But if he thinks the report is wrong, his problem is with his own intelligence agency, not the outlets who accurately reported on its assessment. (Notably, both CNN and The New York Times made clear the report was preliminary, the analysis ongoing, and that the administration disputed its conclusions.)

    FIRE has gotten flak over the past few months for focusing so much on President Trump. Believe me, we wish we didn’t have to. 

    But when the most powerful official in the country repeatedly shows contempt for the First Amendment, it’s our job as a free speech organization to call that out. Presidents wield enormous power to stifle dissent. Their rhetoric and actions influence how other government officials interpret the bounds of the First Amendment, and they shape public attitudes about the enduring value of free expression.  

    This isn’t about partisanship. We unequivocally opposed the Biden administration’s efforts to suppress speech and consistently push back against censorship from the left, too. And much of our work doesn’t relate to partisan flashpoints that dominate the news. Every day, we’re defending ordinary Americans facing censorship from state legislatures, universities, city councils, school boards, and other government actors.

    As FIRE’s Executive Vice President Nico Perrino said yesterday, “The biggest threat to free speech is political power,” and at this moment, the right side of the aisle controls both political branches of the federal government. 

    That balance will shift, as it always does. But FIRE’s mission of holding those in power to the First Amendment will not.

    Source link