Mike Pence on Education Republian nominee for Vice President; Governor of Indiana; former Representative (IN-6)

COVID: Don't want CDC guidance on school reopenings

No federal pre-K grant, but pre-K voucher for neediest

"Pence said he will work with the General Assembly to propose a prekindergarten voucher program for Indiana's neediest families. He said the program would be voluntary and be usable for the school year or summer preceding kindergarten at public or private providers. Families with household incomes up to 185 percent of the federal poverty level, which for a family of four is $43,567, would be eligible." [Evansville Courier & Press, 12/6/13]

Budget proposes more money for private school vouchers

Give parents right to choose: public, private, parochial

Pro-voucher so parents decide how to educate their kids

Replaced Common Core with state-standards version

Pence pushed for the adoption of new standards that were "identical or nearly the same" as Common Core, leading to rapid standards and testing changes that left educators and students in a state of confusion. Pence earned praise for getting rid of Common Core, but the cheers subsided when drafts of the new standards were released. Critics complained that many of the standards were identical or nearly the same as Common Core standards--more than 70% by one accounting. But those backing Common Core weren't celebrating either. Just enough Common Core principles had been removed that supporters of the standards consider Indiana's proposal little more than a watered down version.

Incentivize teaching as a career

Testing regime needs to be improved

Connect high school grads with vocational ed OR college

While anyone who wants to go to college should, there are a lot of jobs in Indiana with great upward mobility prospects that don't require a college degree. These new partnerships will make this work for all Hoosiers. To ensure we succeed, I am proposing legislation that will conduct an in-depth, return-on-investment assessment of how our career & technical education dollars are being spent across the state. We need to know what the results are, and whether local vocational education facilities and faculty are being used as they should.

Fight for local control and responsibility of education

As I visit with teachers, administrators and parents, they ask me to fight for real education reform. They did not send me to Washington to increase the federal government's role in their lives. They sent me to fight for innovation and reform by funneling resources, not red tape, from the federal government to our local schools.

I support empowering parents with school choice. Every child must have the opportunity to pursue the American dream. Forcing them to attend failing schools robs them of this chance. Further, I firmly believe parents are much better positioned than bureaucrats to determine which schools their children should attend. Because of these convictions, as a public servant and a parent, I will continue to fight for local control and responsibility of education.

Eliminate "No Child Left Behind" K-12 testing requirements

Mike Pence indicated support for the following principles regarding education:
• Eliminate all federal education standards and testing requirements for K-12 students (No Child Left Behind).
• Allow parents to use vouchers to send their children to any public school.
• Allow parents to use vouchers to send their children to any private or religious school.
• Allow teachers and professionals to receive federal funding to establish charter or magnet schools.
• Increase funding for the Pell Grant program.
• Decrease interest rates of Stafford Loans.
• Support federal tax incentives to help families save for college.
• Require universities to disclose financial relationships with lenders.

Voted YES on reauthorizing the DC opportunity scholarship program.

1. receiving assistance under the supplemental nutrition assistance program; or
2. with incomes not exceeding 185% of the poverty line.

1. the DC public schools to improve public education, and
2. the DC public charter schools to improve and expand quality public charter schools.

Proponent's Argument for voting Yes:
[Rep. Bishop, R-UT]: In 1996, Congress insisted upon a charter school program in DC. You will hear from both sides of the aisle recognition of the great value that that program has, and justifiably so. There is a waiting list in DC for those charter schools. This bill increases the percentage of funding going to charter schools in the District. In 2003, an Opportunity Scholarship was instituted, at the insistence of Congress. Again, there was a waiting list of people wanting the opportunity; disadvantaged kids who wanted the opportunity that this scholarship afforded them. There were 216 kids at the time scheduled to enter the program who were not allowed; the bill remedies that.

Opponent's Argument for voting No:
[Rep. Hastings, D-FL]: In the last 41 years voters have rejected private school vouchers every time they have been proposed. In 1981, 89% of the people in a referendum in DC voted against vouchers. So how dare we come here to tell these people that we are going to thrust upon them something they don't want without a single public official in this community being consulted. Congress' oversight of the District is not an excuse for political pandering to the Republicans' special interest of the day du jour.

Voted NO on $40B for green public schools.

Proponent's argument to vote Yes: Rep. BETSY MARKEY (D, CO-4): This legislation will improve the learning environment for our children, reduce energy costs and create new jobs across the country. Green schools not only save school districts money but also teach the importance of sustainable living to children at a young age.

Opponent's argument to vote No: Rep. GLENN THOMPSON (R, PA-5): We all know our Nation is drowning in a sea of red ink. The bill we're debating today would add an estimated $40 billion in new spending. And despite the majority's hollow promises of fiscal responsibility, there's nothing in the legislation to offset this hefty price tag with spending reductions elsewhere. This is just more of the same borrow and spend, spend and borrow policy that we've seen under this majority and this administration.

Voted NO on additional $10.2B for federal education & HHS projects.

Proponents support voting YES because:

Rep. OBEY: This bill, more than any other, determines how willing we are to make the investment necessary to assure the future strength of this country and its working families. The President has chosen to cut the investments in this bill by more than $7.5 billion in real terms. This bill rejects most of those cuts.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

Rep. LEWIS: This bill reflects a fundamental difference in opinion on the level of funding necessary to support the Federal Government's role in education, health and workforce programs. The bill is $10.2 billion over the President's budget request. While many of these programs are popular on both sides of the aisle, this bill contains what can rightly be considered lower priority & duplicative programs. For example, this legislation continues three different programs that deal with violence prevention. An omnibus bill is absolutely the wrong and fiscally reckless approach to completing this year's work. It would negate any semblance of fiscal discipline demonstrated by this body in recent years.

Veto message from President Bush:

This bill spends too much. It exceeds [by $10.2 billion] the reasonable and responsible levels for discretionary spending that I proposed to balance the budget by 2012. This bill continues to fund 56 programs that I proposed to terminate because they are duplicative, narrowly focused, or not producing results. This bill does not sufficiently fund programs that are delivering positive outcomes. This bill has too many earmarks--more than 2,200 earmarks totaling nearly $1 billion. I urge the Congress to send me a fiscally responsible bill that sets priorities.

Voted NO on allowing Courts to decide on "God" in Pledge of Allegiance.

Proponents support voting YES because:

I believe that our Pledge of Allegiance with its use of the phrase "under God" is entirely consistent with our Nation's cultural and historic traditions. I also believe that the Court holding that use of this phrase is unconstitutional is wrong. But this court-stripping bill is not necessary. This legislation would bar a Federal court, including the Supreme Court, from reviewing any claim that challenges the recitation of the Pledge on first amendment grounds.

If we are a Nation of laws, we must be committed to allowing courts to decide what the law is. This bill is unnecessary and probably unconstitutional. It would contradict the principle of Marbury v. Madison, intrude on the principles of separation of powers, and degrade our independent Federal judiciary.

Opponents support voting NO because:

I was disappointed 4 years ago when two judges of the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that our Pledge, our statement of shared national values, was somehow unconstitutional. I do not take legislation that removes an issue from the jurisdiction of this court system lightly. This legislation is appropriate, however, because of the egregious conduct of the courts in dealing with the Pledge of Allegiance.

By striking "under God" from the Pledge, the Court has shown contempt for the Congress which approved the language, and, more importantly, shows a complete disregard for the millions of Americans who proudly recite the Pledge as a statement of our shared national values and aspirations. No one is required to recite the Pledge if they disagree with its message.

Voted NO on $84 million in grants for Black and Hispanic colleges.