That's good man. Keep praying. It's good for you. Your family will notice the change too.
Confirmed ...vouchers were a handout to wealthy.
- Thread starter MitchLL
- Start date
Correction to 3rd sentence: fund white children from upper middle class-wealthy families that the schools might accept
We all know private schools will likely have better average test scores in years to come.
And Dim Kim will tout this somewhere down the road.
Of course, it will help that they were allowed to "screen" incoming students.
And Dim Kim will tout this somewhere down the road.
Of course, it will help that they were allowed to "screen" incoming students.
@Pinehawk did the Governor go against the will of the people on this? Yes or No
You are such a hypocrite. You admit that this law does not commit to the education of ALL of our children, just a select few who support a religious organization.
No - "you're a moron" means you're a moron. And apparently a bigot as well.
That's a lie. The religious schools were asking for this and those who support them as well. This was not on the ballot at all. Put it on the ballot and see how it does.
So they choose, not the parents. Correct?
I fully expect you to ignore this question again. Because you're a hypocritical coward.
Fine. You’ve had page after page to address the question as has @seminole97 . Not one single word. Why? Private schools get public money. They must accept any student who applies just as public schools must. They must be accountable for their performance in the exact same ways public schools are held accountable. What about those simple requirements so frightens you all? Make your case.
Not if they take public money. Or let public schools establish an “admissions process” to screen out the students THEY don’t want and let them put a cap on numbers. One or the other. What’s your argument against that?
Leadership requires this. Otherwise we would simply approve legislation and not referenda.
Are you stating that the majority knows best in all cases?
In the US we vote for our leaders based on their leadership and the overall direction of their ideology. No candidate is perfect for anyone's life. So stating that she did this against the wishes of the public ignores the reality that is governance. So....it doesn't really matter, at the end of the day, where an issue polls. People ultimately have their say at the ballot box and the public has spoken on that and resoundingly in favor of Governor Reynolds.
KkkkHuh? The first year you could only get an ESA if you were a family of four at or below 300% of FPL.
Me thinks you got it backwards Nordy. Quick, edit your post...nobody will know!
Edit to add link to Kimberly's shit:
Iowa’s Students First Education Savings Account program generates more than 29,000 applications
Governor Reynolds has announced that 29,025 K-12 students applied for a Students First Education Savings Account (ESA) during the program’s monthlong...governor.iowa.gov
Testing performance- I'm on record as being for that. Id be on board with amending the legislation to include that.
Let me call you out, you're big on calling out others.
So if they added this amendment I am to presume you'd be for the legislation? Or is this simply the wheel you've chosen to grind your axe when you actually oppose it regardless of that issues fulfillment? Id suspect the latter.
I am adamantly opposed to curriculum requirements. Though I recognize you didn't bring that issue up.
I am opposed to forced admission. Once a school has reached capacity they should not be asked to take on more than they can handle. This applies to other public and private sector areas of industry. Healthcare systems, both public and private, take public dollars. There are times when they can refuse to admit or accept a patient if they are at capacity. This concept is not new. How would you like to be forced to use one hospital over you preferred one? Lots of people choose their health plan based on which providers and institutions it covers. Maybe we should have public hospitals? Those that cant afford to send their family to private should have to use the public ones. Like the VA for example. (FTR I am all for vets being able to choose where they spend their healthcare dollars btw and not be locked into the VA system)
I strongly suspect many on here will be for their healthcare choice but not for their school choice. ' The fact is that this country long ago choose to create a public school system, not a public health system. This is the only real difference in peoples approach. They have grown used to one option and feel it is the only one. This is a new approach and one that is mirrored in other sectors as I have illustrated.
You can’t “call me out”. I’m completely consistent. Take public money, meet public standards. All of them. Don’t like it? Don’t take public money. Not only is that consistent, it’s simple.
Fine. So when public school students aren’t performing on grade level, you’re ok with that.
It’s apparently new that people have a constitutional right to free and appropriate health care as they do to education. Or do they not in Iowa. They don’t in NC. I hope you run things differently. Otherwise you’re doing that apple to hammers thing.
Answered
One is constitutionally guaranteed. Don’t like it, change your Constitution. Make education a commodity just like health care. Sell services to those who can pay and f*** everyone else. Don’t like that, stop flapping your gums in irrelevancy.
Nothing better than living in Sioux City and seeing our struggling neighbors in the Dakota Dunes get subsidized.
Nope. See post 193 of mine. I said the exact opposite actually.
What is constitutionally guaranteed?
What now? Please tell me this is some sort of 'AI predictive language' post because these words appear to be randomly placed together or maybe it's just a failed attempt to pose as someone who is an intellectual.
This one is pretty easily answered…(simplified numbers)
If the pool of students was 100 kids getting $1,000 each and you only funded with vouchers kids who moved from public to private it is a net zero change. However, these laws are about adding students who were outside the system to the funding roster and doesn’t adequately expand the pool of dollars. So now you have 120 kids being funded, but the pool of money doesn’t scale and the kids get $800 each. So not only is the public school losing dollars for the 3 kids who moved, they are also getting less dollars/student for the kids who remain.
How about we work with actual numbers? Sure, in your hypothetical it seems significant. Wonder if that's a coincidence? Clearly not. If you are going to use numbers, like actual numbers to bolster your point, at least go through the trouble to make them realistic.
My suspicion was that the actual dollars spent per student has gone down very little or in other words, a very low percentage as, as has been said, the number actually taking advantage of this is low. So I looked them up.
I can give you my chosen example. Its more illustrative much more accurate. I've taken these number from a variety of sources available. Here are a couple of them I referenced.
Iowa private schools see enrollment jump after passage of education savings accounts
Student enrollment in private schools went up more than 7% this year.
www.desmoinesregister.com
PK-12 Education Statistics
Explore data collected by the Iowa Department of Education (Department) in various formats for PK-12 schools in the state.
Here are the facts.
There were a total of 481,713 pre-12 grade students enrolled in Iowa 2022-2023. Per the Des Moines Register article 36,195 students enrolled in private school. Of those students, 16,757 used the state's recently created education savings accounts to pay for their school expenses. So there was a 'diversion' from the prior state public school funding, when private school tuition payments from the state were not allowed, of 127M. This is in a state that spent 3.69 billion total. This is a 3% decrease. Even at that, it is probaly not consequential if that was all there was to the story. Problem is, when the law was created, it was offset by a 103 million increase in funding from Reynolds and the legislature. Oh SNAP, you mean an actual 'expanded pool of dollars'? Huh. So, in fact, year to year, the percentage decrease was 0.3%. 14 million/3.69 billion. You intend to argue that that percentage decrease is actually going to matter to outcomes? GTFO. So while your example conveniently picks number that sound good, they are wrong.
Many, perhaps you I dunno, are simply mad ANY money is being pulled away from public schools. The amount or significance of this matters little. You don't support religious education or private education for any student or even less when they get public dollars. Period. No chew on that awhile.
I’m posting from a larger view than just the Iowa program. I’ve experienced the largest expansion of vouchers in the country in Indiana and what is happening in Iowa is similar to how things started in Indiana. All along, I have posted my experiences with vouchers and pretty much predicted what will happen with Iowa’s program. I feel fine with my hypothetical as it is a representation of what has happened in Indiana and will likely happen in Iowa. A one year window into the Iowa program is not demonstrative into the goals of what the national voucher proponents (who are heavily in KR’s ear) plan to do.
And you would be wrong in your last paragraph. I have posted multiple times including in this thread that I am fine with vouchers with strict limits and robust oversight. Even though all the studies show that students who take advantage of vouchers show little difference in academic performance on the whole. I have zero issue with religious schools/education. I am a regular attendee of church and have made sure that my children have a grounding in their faith. I don’t believe that public dollars should pay for religious education. When public dollars are paying for kids in my school district to go to our local catholic school that doesn’t outperform our public schools that is an issue for me.
And you would be wrong in your last paragraph. I have posted multiple times including in this thread that I am fine with vouchers with strict limits and robust oversight. Even though all the studies show that students who take advantage of vouchers show little difference in academic performance on the whole. I have zero issue with religious schools/education. I am a regular attendee of church and have made sure that my children have a grounding in their faith. I don’t believe that public dollars should pay for religious education. When public dollars are paying for kids in my school district to go to our local catholic school that doesn’t outperform our public schools that is an issue for me.
If public money is going to private schools, those schools shouldn’t be considered private. Public and private schools are run differently and aren’t held to the same standards.
They aren’t actually private. They are parochial.
I just use private interchangeably so the lesser minds on here understand.
You’re right though. Public school standards are far below what’s expected in parochial school. Attendance. Behavior. Class load. Respect. Drug and tobacco use. Hair style. Clothing (as many require uniforms) etc.
Those aren't standards, they're codes of conduct.
These are standards:
Iowa Academic Standards
Clear and rigorous learning standards educators use to ensure all students are college, career and future ready.
Not true, any kindergarten child or child attending a public school the previous year was qualified for ESA this school year regardless of income.
That's our system Tom.
I'm thankful our state leaders don't govern by the latest poll results.
From your post 193… Whois arguing that the school would/should continue to gain funding from non-attendees?
“The way it works is you get to take the money the state would have spent on you to educate you in public education and take it to the school you'd like. The money simply get diverted from the public school to the private one. Are you arguing that the public school should still get your dollars even though you aren't attending their school? Why does the public school need those dollars? They aren't educating your kids with them.”
The way to tell us you don’t know how funding works without saying you don’t know how funding works. It is based on butts in chairs. Public or private, no school gets money for kids not in attendance. You really think schools continue to get funding for kids who aren’t in attendance?
NC uses the ADM or average daily membership method and I am comfortable in saying that Iowa uses a similar method.
“The way it works is you get to take the money the state would have spent on you to educate you in public education and take it to the school you'd like. The money simply get diverted from the public school to the private one. Are you arguing that the public school should still get your dollars even though you aren't attending their school? Why does the public school need those dollars? They aren't educating your kids with them.”
The way to tell us you don’t know how funding works without saying you don’t know how funding works. It is based on butts in chairs. Public or private, no school gets money for kids not in attendance. You really think schools continue to get funding for kids who aren’t in attendance?
NC uses the ADM or average daily membership method and I am comfortable in saying that Iowa uses a similar method.
So are you for a lottery system to determine who gets into a private school once they've reached capacity? To be fair to everyone?
We already have a healthcare system that requires one hospital to be used over another. Your comparison is absurd.
The people who support this are the ones benefitting from it.
This legislation definitely wasn't. And she didn't run touting this policy. She got the power she needed and then pushed this through despite the wide opposition to it. Because her donors are the beneficiaries.
WTF was that? The state is paying $127M for what they said was an opportunity for public school students to get a private school education. There were 2135 students enrolled in private schools that were in public schools before. That's over $59,000/student to get this "better" education. That's insane.How about we work with actual numbers? Sure, in your hypothetical it seems significant. Wonder if that's a coincidence? Clearly not. If you are going to use numbers, like actual numbers to bolster your point, at least go through the trouble to make them realistic.
My suspicion was that the actual dollars spent per student has gone down very little or in other words, a very low percentage as, as has been said, the number actually taking advantage of this is low. So I looked them up.
I can give you my chosen example. Its more illustrative much more accurate. I've taken these number from a variety of sources available. Here are a couple of them I referenced.
Iowa private schools see enrollment jump after passage of education savings accounts
Student enrollment in private schools went up more than 7% this year.www.desmoinesregister.com
PK-12 Education Statistics
Explore data collected by the Iowa Department of Education (Department) in various formats for PK-12 schools in the state.educate.iowa.gov
Here are the facts.
There were a total of 481,713 pre-12 grade students enrolled in Iowa 2022-2023. Per the Des Moines Register article 36,195 students enrolled in private school. Of those students, 16,757 used the state's recently created education savings accounts to pay for their school expenses. So there was a 'diversion' from the prior state public school funding, when private school tuition payments from the state were not allowed, of 127M. This is in a state that spent 3.69 billion total. This is a 3% decrease. Even at that, it is probaly not consequential if that was all there was to the story. Problem is, when the law was created, it was offset by a 103 million increase in funding from Reynolds and the legislature. Oh SNAP, you mean an actual 'expanded pool of dollars'? Huh. So, in fact, year to year, the percentage decrease was 0.3%. 14 million/3.69 billion. You intend to argue that that percentage decrease is actually going to matter to outcomes? GTFO. So while your example conveniently picks number that sound good, they are wrong.
Many, perhaps you I dunno, are simply mad ANY money is being pulled away from public schools. The amount or significance of this matters little. You don't support religious education or private education for any student or even less when they get public dollars. Period. No chew on that awhile.
There's no way to spin that. Nor the fact that public schools are now getting $127M to educate their 400,000 students.
So you would be good with making this a ballot initiative?
They'll make this a ballot initiative the same day they do abortion and marijuana. All huge winners for them, no doubt.
