Connect with us

Indiana

Indiana cannot afford to botch its curriculum reform

Published

on

Indiana cannot afford to botch its curriculum reform


Indiana is in the process of revamping its high school curricula. This could be a superb opportunity to rethink some fundamentals about schooling, its role in society and the needs of the future economy.

It is also a good time to re-center the long-term wellbeing of students into the discussion.

However, the last time Indiana made significant changes to school curriculum, we failed badly. That cannot happen again.

Advertisement

In December 2013, then-Gov. Mike Pence announced an ambitious plan to offer more career-focused education to Hoosier high school kids who weren’t going to college. It was a smart, thoughtful and much-needed addition to our educational landscape. I was an enthusiastic supporter and wrote in support of it.

Almost from the beginning, the execution of that plan was botched. It is worth recounting how a very good idea became very bad public policy, and how the accumulated mistakes of a decade continue to haunt Indiana’s economic performance even now and into the distant future.

The Daniels-era education reforms were successful on almost every important measure.

The push for higher standards revealed itself in test scores, graduation rates and college attendance and success.

They strengthened good local public schools and forced bad ones to change. But not everyone wishes to go to college and, for three generations, we’d cut programs for those students.

Advertisement

Pence’s plan was met with strong support by business, which offered free curriculum in STEM, and support for students wishing a career route.

My school corporation, led by Jennifer McCormick, developed an award-winning program with a local manufacturing firm.

Things started off well. Then the Department of Workforce Development began to push the state’s board of education.

The Department of Workforce Development had an occupational forecast claiming that, between 2014 and 2024, there’d be a huge demand for high school-only graduates — that is, students who graduated high school and did not go to college. The Department of Workforce Development’s forecast claimed that the state would need 400,000 more high school-only graduates by 2024.

Advertisement

I did everything I knew how to do in order to explain why this was mistaken.

I used labor demand forecasts from a half dozen economists that said we’d need fewer high school graduates by 2024. I showed them the studies from the 1970s through the 2000s explaining how these forecasts were too flawed to be used as a labor market policy tool.

Nothing I said or wrote had any effect.

The Department of Workforce Development had already run off their economists for saying roughly the same thing. They weren’t at all interested in hearing analysis from anyone who actually knew anything about labor markets. The newer versions of that forecast are still guiding both labor market and education policy in Indiana.

All of this presents the question: How wrong were they?

Advertisement

A lot.

In 2015, the forecast overstated the demand for high school only graduates in 2014 — that is, the previous year — by 190,000 workers. Yes, you read that correctly. They actually got history wrong. I’ve never seen a forecast that wrong, that quickly. Still, that did not deter their enthusiasm for the forecast.

As of last fall, Indiana has 20,000 more high school graduates working than in 2014. So that forecast of demand for 400,000 more high school graduates is going to be wrong by about 2,000%.

I write this because it is my biggest professional failure.

Had I been more persuasive, I should’ve been able to avoid the train wreck that ensued. I was not, and the state has been trapped by bad human capital policy ever since. It has significantly weakened Indiana’s long-term economic prospects.

Advertisement

The recovery from the Great Recession was the worst economic expansion in state history. We slipped on every important measure of economic success with some of the worst performances coming in the last five years of the expansion.

The COVID and post-pandemic economy should’ve been very kind to Indiana. Because of our manufacturing intensity, our growth should’ve outpaced the nation. It did not. The reason for 15 years of relative decline is that we have a poorly educated workforce that is getting worse.

That bad labor forecast from 2014 was very influential in the legislature. And how could it not be? It was a false promise of economic growth without actually investing more in education. It didn’t matter that the nation had gone more than two decades without creating a single net new job for someone who hadn’t been to college. The bad forecast drove policy.

Funding for K-12 stalled on a per-student basis and dropped as a share of GDP. Pence’s vision morphed into an anti-college agenda. The state’s workforce development director and the president of our community college system downplayed the benefits of post-secondary education.

By 2017, Indiana introduced career indoctrination down to sixth grade. Among the largest of these were manufacturing occupations and truck drivers. The demand for both is lower today than in 2014.

Advertisement

Pence’s program to offer career-focused opportunities to older students became a platform for pushing students away from post-secondary education. To their credit, in 2020, the legislature increased the age that career pathways would start. So, today, we wait until children are 13 to provide them bad labor market advice.

The most damaging effect was on college attendance. Indiana peaked in 2015, sending 65 percent of our high school graduates to college, at a time when the national average was 72 percent of students. In the race for a talented workforce, Indiana was well behind and running slower than the pack. Over the past two years, fewer than 53 percent of our high school graduates have gone to college. Until this changes, we will not be contenders in a 21st century economy.

We are now near the very bottom in human capital development, making it an opportune time to compare what Indiana does and aspires to do with that of the nation as a whole. Over the past three decades, more than 100 percent of new jobs in the U.S. have gone to people who attended college, with 8 in 10 going to 4-year degree holders.

Over the same time, the college wage premium has grown. We are now 50 years into an economy that places a premium on human capital. That won’t change, no matter how badly some states prepare.

Indiana is moving in the wrong direction at record speed.

Advertisement

The period since 2015 is the start of the first decline in educational attainment in Indiana history.

The educational reforms we now consider must reverse this decline. We must consider what students need to know for the next 50 years of work — not what low-wage employers say they need after graduation. We simply cannot fail at this again.

Michael J. Hicks, Ph.D., is the director of the Center for Business and Economic Research and the George and Frances Ball distinguished professor of economics in the Miller College of Business at Ball State University.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Indiana

Braun asks regulators to reconsider $71 million AES rate increase

Published

on

Braun asks regulators to reconsider  million AES rate increase


Gov. Mike Braun asked state regulators to reconsider their decision to greenlight a $71 million rate increase for AES Indiana, doubling down on his condemnation of a move that could leave Indianapolis residents with higher electrical bills for years. 

Braun wrote in a June 18 news release that he had asked Indiana Utility Counselor Abby Gray, who heads the office representing ratepayers in proceedings before the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, to petition for a rehearing of the AES rate case. 

Gray indicated in the release that her office would submit the petition shortly. No petition had been posted on the IURC’s online docket as of this story’s publication.

The rate increase, which was approved by the IURC on June 17, was substantially less than the $192 million increase that AES initially requested. It was also less than the amount proposed in a settlement last October between AES and major electricity consumers. 

Advertisement

But the Office of Utility Consumer Counselor, which Gray leads, came out strongly against any increase to AES’s base rates. In September, the OUCC called for a $21 million reduction instead.

As the Republican Party grapples with rising discontent over affordability, Braun has used opposition to rising utility rates to telegraph that he’s committed to keeping costs down for Indiana residents. He signed a law in February that allows the state to make rate-setting decisions that reward or penalize utilities based on metrics including affordability.

 In March, he told reporters that he would take on Indiana’s five investor-owned utilities, describing himself as the “new sheriff in town.”

And after the IURC voted 3-1 to approve the AES rate increase, he wrote in a post to X that he was “deeply disappointed.”

Advertisement

Braun wrote in the June 18 news release that he had appointed Gray, a longtime OUCC lawyer and judge, to her current post because he knew she “would help me fight for Hoosiers.” 

According to AES’s estimates, the rate increase will cost households an additional $5 per month for every 1,000 kilowatt hours of electricity they use, beginning in July. A second hike will take effect in January. 

Tilly Robinson is a Pulliam fellow for the Indianapolis Star. She can be reached at tilly.robinson@indystar.com.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Indiana

College sports wants Congress’ help. Why Indiana Sen. Todd Young voted against bill

Published

on

College sports wants Congress’ help. Why Indiana Sen. Todd Young voted against bill


The Protect College Sports Act, legislation meant to introduce and codify sweeping reforms related to college athletics, passed out of the Senate Commerce Committee on Thursday morning.

It now heads to the Senate floor.

The bill passed out of committee by a 19-9 vote. Indiana Republican Sen. Todd Young voted no, his decision reflecting Big Ten concerns over the bill.

Advertisement

A spokesman for Sen. Young told IndyStar, “Senator Young hopes that additional changes can be made to the bill to address concerns raised by the Big Ten.”

Co-sponsored by Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Maria Cantwell (D-Washington), the Protect College Sports Act represents Congress’ most substantial success so far in a yearslong effort to bring legislative reform to college athletics. Since before the COVID-19 pandemic, leaders in college sports — including the NCAA, member conferences and schools, and other major players — have lobbied for national solutions to what have become state and regional problems.

Several pieces of legislation have been introduced across the last several years, only to fizzle long before reaching the floor of either chamber. The SCORE Act, introduced last year in the House of Representatives, gained some traction and passed out of committee, but was never brought to the floor.

Which makes Thursday’s news meaningful. Moving the Protect College Sports Act to the Senate floor, while not a guarantee of any outcome, potentially takes the bill past a threshold no other such piece of reformative legislation has yet been able to cross.

Advertisement

Cruz told Yahoo! Sports’ Ross Dellenger on Thursday that Cruz believes Sen. Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) is committed to introducing the bill to the Senate floor soon.

The bill provides a legal framework for a host of potential reforms and protections for college sports. It grants limited antitrust protection to the NCAA, places limits on certain things including potential conference realignment, builds safeguards meant to protect non-revenue and Olympic sports, addresses potential broadcast rights reforms, and more.

It enjoys significant backing, and not just among leaders in college sports. This week, the NFL, its players’ association, the National Basketball Players Association and Major League Baseball all voiced their support for the bill.

Two key constituencies not in lockstep on the bill voiced their own concerns Thursday.

Advertisement

In a joint statement issued just after 10 a.m. Thursday, the Big Ten and SEC — far and away the two most powerful conferences and arguably two greatest power centers, full stop, in college athletics — suggested they still hold significant reservations over the bill.

“From the outset, we identified a set of essential revisions to the PCSA necessary for the long-term sustainability of college athletics,” the statement read. “We have worked with both majority and minority staff to advance those revisions, which focus on better supporting student-athletes and stabilizing the college sports environment. We continue to believe revisions are needed to secure our support for the bill.

“Despite our sustained engagement and good faith efforts, these critical revisions have not been accepted.”

The statement went on to note the “several Commerce Committee members that share our concerns and support these recommendations.”

Young is one of several members of the committee representing a Big Ten state, including one of three Republicans. He is the only Republican member of the committee whose state contains multiple schools in the conference.

Advertisement

Allowing for those reservations, Thursday’s news is still significant. It marks the first time a bipartisan bill on the subject has reached this point in the Senate and, should it be brought to the floor, it would be the first such legislation to reach that stage, in either chamber.

The bill could be brought to the Senate floor as early as July, though that timeline remains fluid.



Source link

Continue Reading

Indiana

State regulators OK $71 million rate increase for AES Indiana

Published

on

State regulators OK  million rate increase for AES Indiana


(INDIANA CAPITAL CHRONICLE) – The Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission voted 3-1 Wednesday to approve a $71 million electricity rate increase for AES Indiana customers.

That is about 37% of what the utility initially requested and lower than a settlement agreement proposed in October.

Neither Gov. Mike Braun nor consumer advocates are happy with the outcome.

“My top priority is affordability, which is why I am deeply disappointed by the IURC’s approval of another AES rate increase,” he said. “Hoosiers have spent years tightening their belts and making tough financial decisions. It’s time for utility companies to do the same.”

Advertisement

Members of the commission didn’t explain their votes Wednesday. IURC Chair Andy Zay focused his remarks on the process.

“There’s a lot of eyes on this order and what we’re doing today,” he said. “What is before you on the floor is a nearly a year’s worth of work, evidence, deliberations, and considerations that bring us to this moment in this decision. None of this was taken lightly. I want to thank my colleagues for the patience and working through this amongst the auspice of affordability, which is certainly a hot topic now, as well as the resiliency, reliability that we see in this increased demand in electricity.”

The Office of Utility Consumer Counselor last year recommended that state regulators deny AES Indiana’s request for a $193 million base rate increase — instead proposing a $21 million reduction in current rates.

“The AES rate order issued today is an outrage and Hoosiers deserve better!” Counselor Abby Gray said in a statement Wednesday. “Governor Braun has made it clear that ratepayer affordability is a priority, far more than just a ‘hot topic’ as described by the chairman of the IURC today. This order fails the governor’s call to overhaul how utilities are regulated in order to lower bills for ratepayers.”

Gray’s office represents Hoosier ratepayers in regulatory cases.

Advertisement

“The order approves a substantial profit margin for shareholders in addition to a rate increase for customers,” she continued. “It even requires ratepayers to pay approximately $3 million to AES lawyers and experts.”

AES Indiana provides electricity service to about 490,000 homes and businesses in Indianapolis and some nearby areas.

The utility originally sought $193 million in rate increases. The previously proposed settlement agreement dropped that to $91 million, while the final, approved settlement agreement lands at $71 million.

Three IURC members supported the increase: Zay, David Veleta and David Ziegner.

Commissioner Bob Deig voted no. A fifth member, Anthony Swinger, recused himself because he worked on the case previously when he was on the consumer counselor’s office staff.

Advertisement

Ben Inskeep, program director for ratepayer advocacy group Citizens Action Coalition, said utilities across the country often ask for a larger increase than they need, knowing that regulators will disallow “roughly half” of it.

“The latest AES Indiana fuel adjustment clause proceeding shows AES Indiana is actually not only earning all of their allowed profit but over-earning by $19 million their return amount,” he said. “They’re already extremely financially successful at this moment in time, so it’s rather bizarre to even get an extra $71 million dollars approved here.”

Inskeep also noted that the increases will fall disproportionately on residential customers over commercial and industrial users.

Brandi Davis-Handy, president of AES Indiana, said the company has maintained some of the lowest rates in the state for more than a decade “through disciplined planning and a focus on efficiency. We applied the same approach here by working closely with stakeholders to make balanced decisions that keep the system reliable, limit customer impact, and align with the state’s energy pillars.”

AES said for a typical residential customer using 1,000 kilowatt-hours per month, the increase will be less than $5 per month per phase. Phase one rates will be implemented in July 2026 and phase two rates will be implemented in January 2027.

Advertisement

The final order says the utility “will not seek to implement a change in basic rates and charges as a result of its next base rate case before January 1, 2030.”

A new law, however, requires all utilities to file a multi-year rate case in 2029, though implementation wouldn’t happen until 2030.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending