Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, January 24, 2023

Under House Study Bill 1 or the "Students First Act," students in private school will receive $7,598, the average cost the state spends on a public school student, per year for any family in the state to cover private school expenses. Under the law, public schools within the state will receive $1,205 for each student who lives in their district but attends private school and is funded by the ESA program.

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

The law creates the Education Savings Account (ESA) program which provides families who withdraw their students from public schools and enroll them in private school with taxpayer funds. Under the Iowa law, the student is eligible to receive funding until they are 20 years old.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Why shouldn't the rich get more money and gut public education at the same time?

#1 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2023-01-24 02:09 PM | Reply

At least it will help cut down on school shootings.

#2 | Posted by Lohocla at 2023-01-24 02:25 PM | Reply

Holy Moly....a bunch of other states will follow.

But...I don't see why anybody would do take advantage of the opportunity to attend a private school.

According to Rstyswallows, Public schools are "just as good"

#3 | Posted by eberly at 2023-01-24 02:40 PM | Reply

---- off, Beverly. Look up Rancho Bernardo, Palo Alto, Torrey Pines, and La Canada.

The problem is when public schools are funded solely by real estate taxes, the rich areas have WAY more cash (and the parents as well)

You're a preening, pathetic water-carrier for fascist, racist, elitist scum. You aspire to be like them, but your sad life choices guarantee you'll just be another rube writing a check to a loser like Fat Donnie.
---- off, ------. You've been plonked.

#4 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2023-01-24 02:46 PM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 1

-You've been plonked.

Thank you, if that's remotely serious (I know it's not). You'll notice nobody ever addresses you except as a response to your trolling, exactly like right now.

You can talk to yourself, which is pretty much what you do now, you worthless POS.

Feel free to plonk EVERYONE. I know I speak on behalf of them when I say, "Thanks in advance".

#5 | Posted by eberly at 2023-01-24 03:07 PM | Reply

Status: user

Killfile: sheepleschism, Effeteposer, eberly

You're in great company, you whiny little bitch.

#6 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2023-01-24 03:20 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

The state of Kansas gets sued every decade or so over adequate school funding and typically the courts side with the schools and the state legislature has to resume to work out equitable funding.

Something like this would generate the same response from public schools, I would think.

Perhaps in these other states as well??

#7 | Posted by eberly at 2023-01-24 03:37 PM | Reply

The government should only be in the accreditation business.

#8 | Posted by oneironaut at 2023-01-24 03:48 PM | Reply

Although the setting aside of land might be warranted

#9 | Posted by oneironaut at 2023-01-24 03:51 PM | Reply

The other thing is watch private school tuition rise just like university tuition

#10 | Posted by oneironaut at 2023-01-24 03:53 PM | Reply

You really do live in Russia, don't ya little fella?

#11 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2023-01-24 03:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Have heard a lot of ridiculous claims from the right fringe here. Most are already plonked, another just got added to it.

#12 | Posted by BBQ at 2023-01-24 07:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

So, now government is simply funneling tax money to religious institutions. LOL.

#13 | Posted by truthhurts at 2023-01-24 08:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

en.wikipedia.org

looks like greater than 90% of the private schools in Iowa are christian schools

#14 | Posted by truthhurts at 2023-01-24 08:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

This is an abomination.

Consider a few facts.

This is NOT parental choice. This is the private school choosing their students and getting paid handsomely for it.

Private schools are not near most rural residents, meaning those rural public schools will be stripped of funding with no reduction on class size.

god forbid you have a special needs child=there goes your resources to the pedo factories, er catholic schools.

You poor and can't afford the tuition even with the state money-well SCREW YOU

English a second language? PUDRETE!

Your child is gay or trans or the parents are gay or trans-A BIG ---- YOU!!!!

Republicans are scum, it is time for this country to break up. ---- them and there faux religious -------

#15 | Posted by truthhurts at 2023-01-24 08:17 PM | Reply

"This is NOT parental choice."

100% true.

Let's be serious: "school choice" is about THE SCHOOL having a choice.

#16 | Posted by Danforth at 2023-01-24 08:26 PM | Reply

This will generate lawsuits. It has to.

#17 | Posted by eberly at 2023-01-24 09:57 PM | Reply

If only they were Catholic schools, eh EB?

Stay creepy, mother fnkcer.

#18 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2023-01-24 10:20 PM | Reply

I've been saying for a while now, Republicans hate education.

Until there's news of Republicans shutting this down. It's sacrificed by the entire party.

It's been coming a long time and Betsy DeVos stirred it as much as she could.

#19 | Posted by ClownShack at 2023-01-24 10:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Sanctified not sacrificed

#20 | Posted by ClownShack at 2023-01-24 10:23 PM | Reply

So nothing about charter schools? Benefit only goes to private schools? These chit heads are shooting themselves in the feet.

#21 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2023-01-24 10:27 PM | Reply

This is very sad.

When I was a kid, Iowa was held up as a bastion of public education.

Iowa Tests, anyone? They were the gold standard.

#22 | Posted by Danforth at 2023-01-24 10:32 PM | Reply

Iowa Tests, anyone? They were the gold standard.

POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2023-01-24 10:32 PM | REPLY

I remember those. They were the test we had in the 70's and 80's.

#23 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2023-01-24 10:41 PM | Reply

Iowa is ranked 24 in education, I wonder where they will be 5 or 10 years from now.

#24 | Posted by truthhurts at 2023-01-24 10:44 PM | Reply

"They were the test we had in the 70's and 80's."

They were the gold standard in the 50s and 60s as well.

#25 | Posted by Danforth at 2023-01-24 10:47 PM | Reply

They were the gold standard in the 50s and 60s as well.

POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2023-01-24 10:47 PM | REPLY

Well I'm not that old so I take your word for it.

#26 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2023-01-24 10:52 PM | Reply

Iowas. Were those the tests that I kept scoring Grade 12.9 on starting around fifth grade?

The world is full of stupid people. George Carlin had it right.

#27 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-01-24 11:06 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

I owe a lot to Iowa pot.

#28 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2023-01-25 12:22 AM | Reply

ooks like greater than 90% of the private schools in Iowa are christian schools

#14 | Posted by truthhurts at 2023-01-24 08:05 PM | Reply | Flag

I'm surprised it's that low.

#29 | Posted by Nixon at 2023-01-25 09:14 AM | Reply

The increasing interest in school choice isn't surprising.

The reality is that many public schools are crap. Particularly since they stopped expelling students and reduced behavioral and educational standards over claims of bias.

In some schools, teachers just pass students rather than deal with the hassle. Thirty kids in a class suffer because one won't be disciplined or can't/won't keep up.

#30 | Posted by censored at 2023-01-25 03:39 PM | Reply

But seriously. The district gets partial funding for a student that DOESN'T go to the school, and full funding for a student that does.

So what's the issue again?

#31 | Posted by ABH at 2023-01-25 03:42 PM | Reply

"So what's the issue again?"

Taking your taxpayer dollars and giving them to a private business is one of the many issues that even someone like you ought to be able to see.

Do you see it, or nah?

#32 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-01-25 03:45 PM | Reply

Not particularly. Our tax dollars do to THOUSANDS of private companies.

Maybe you've heard of oh ... . I don't know, Boeing for instance? Or we could run a laundry list of other defense contractors.

Not sure why a small private institution that can educate my kids better with my very own tax dollars is somehow different, or worse.

#33 | Posted by ABH at 2023-01-25 03:47 PM | Reply

"Our tax dollars do to THOUSANDS of private companies."

How many dollars get taken away from government agencies first?
I can't think of any other examples, but maybe you have some.

#34 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-01-25 03:49 PM | Reply

"Not sure why a small private institution that can educate my kids better with my very own tax dollars is somehow different, or worse."

Pretend for a moment you're a poor black single mother.
You think they're taking your kid?
You're not that stupid.

Then again, this is a feature, not a bug, when you don't want poor black kids of single mothers in your private schools.
Do you see it, or nah?

#35 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-01-25 03:50 PM | Reply

"Taken away". I don't think that phrase means what you think it does.

Still giving partial funding for a student that DOESN'T go to the school, and fully finding one that DOES ... .

#36 | Posted by ABH at 2023-01-25 03:51 PM | Reply

"Still giving partial funding for a student that DOESN'T go to the school, and fully finding one that DOES ... ."

Sounds like your taxes just went up.
Do you see it, or nah?

#37 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-01-25 03:52 PM | Reply

Not sure why a small private institution that can educate my kids better with my very own tax dollars is somehow different, or worse. #33 | Posted by ABH

Because that money is taken from the public schools. The public schools are left with the worst and poorest students and the funding is reduced overall, resulting is a lower quality experience for those kids who are left behind.

#38 | Posted by censored at 2023-01-25 03:54 PM | Reply

And?

I don't have an issue with that. I'm much more comfortable helping kids get a good education than shoveling money at the military industrial complex.

Which is fine, but there is one small detail : do you have any evidence it will require a tax increase?

Are you just making that up? Or nah?

#39 | Posted by ABH at 2023-01-25 03:55 PM | Reply

"I don't have an issue with that."

You're basically okay with bringing back school segregation.

#40 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-01-25 03:56 PM | Reply

"do you have any evidence it will require a tax increase?"

The "extra" money that goes to the public school after the "regular" money has been diverted to the student's private school has to come from somewhere.
If not a tax increase, something is getting de funded.
You'd be okay if that something is public schools.

#41 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-01-25 03:58 PM | Reply

#40. That's a lie but keep going.

#38. Please demonstrate with facts and real world data to show how that's true.

Removing funding AND the cold that requires that funding is a problem how? Especially if they will still be receiving funding for the LACK OF THEIR PRESENCE ... .

I'd seriously like to read a review of historical examples where this could be proven. And I don't mean teachers Union rags printing fear mongering predictions of it. Where it was implemented and it went sour.

I will legitimately change my mind if they can show where measures like this had dire consequences.

#42 | Posted by ABH at 2023-01-25 04:00 PM | Reply

Maybe you haven't figured this out, ABH:
But public schools aren't failing kids with middle income and above parents.

It's poor kids that don't do well in public schools.
And it's poor kids that won't be accepted into private schools under this new program either.

Imagine spending tens of thousands a year to send your kids to an exclusive public school, and then they just start letting the riff-raff in.
You'd take your dollars or your kids elsewhere.

#43 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-01-25 04:01 PM | Reply

#41. I have two kids in public school. I actually like their school very much. Even if this was available, I wouldn't remove them in favor of a private school.

But I certainly don't begrudge anyone that would choose to.
Oh, that and you have zero idea of how I would feel about any institution anywhere losing funding.

#44 | Posted by ABH at 2023-01-25 04:02 PM | Reply

"Where it was implemented and it went sour."

Flip that question. Ask the people who are making this change, to convince you it's a good idea. Ask them to show you where it was implemented and things got better.

You won't be doing that, will you?

#45 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-01-25 04:03 PM | Reply

"I have two kids in public school."

Are you a poor?

#46 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-01-25 04:04 PM | Reply

#43. Spending thousands to attend a public school by buying an expensive house in a wealthy area?

I pay thousands of dollars a year in property taxes ... much of which funds the schools. If this passed where I am, as I said, I'd be in no hurry to pull my kids out of public school.

Not sure what you're trying to say there.

As far as poor children and their academic performance, this COULD (not saying it will bezoar I don't have access to the math) result in poorer districts increasing their relative funding per student, not decreasing. But reactionary hair on fire for trying new things when our public school kids are what? 15th among industrialized nations in terms of their scores is just dumb.

#47 | Posted by ABH at 2023-01-25 04:07 PM | Reply

45. See 47. Our public education produces on average scores that rank I think it's 15th among industrialized nations. SOMETHING isn't working.

Reflexively hating a new idea and imagining the pain it will cause weight actually finding out if your fears are true is beyond stupid.

We can hardly get any worse. I'm not mad at them for trying.

#48 | Posted by ABH at 2023-01-25 04:09 PM | Reply

You're right.
That should be:

Imagine spending tens of thousands a year to send your kids to an exclusive private school,

Apologies for any confusion.

#49 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-01-25 04:09 PM | Reply

"Our public education produces on average scores that rank I think it's 15th among industrialized nations. SOMETHING isn't working."

Many things are broken.
I'd say the biggest thing that is broken is also a Repubilcan sacred cow!
So hopefully you can explain why it is right and proper that America should have over 12,000 independent school districts.

California has over five hundred school districts. Texas has over a thousand.
One school district per county seems sufficient. Unless for some reason one county per county doesn't seem like enough to you.
That would cut the number from 12,000 to 3,000.
And most of the jobs that get axed would be non-teaching administrative positions.

#50 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-01-25 04:14 PM | Reply

"Reflexively hating a new idea"

It's not a new idea, and I'm not reflexively hating it.

I'm looking at the situation first from the perspective of an Undesirable family whose child will simply not be accepted into private school. There's no benefit.

I'm looking at the station from the perspective of a wealthy family who doesn't want their elite school overrun with public school students -- even the not-so-undesirable ones. There's no benefit.

Finally, I pointed out that providing the full funding to a private school plus a token payment to public school costs more than providing the full payment to public school alone. The only benefit flows to the private school, at taxpayer expense.

#51 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-01-25 04:24 PM | Reply

I absolutely do not disagree with you. Reducing overhead is a great way to make sure more dollars end up where it should be.

I'm also absolutely against the assault on teacher autonomy, book banning, and other stupidity. But on a macro scale we are failing our kids and we are legit at the critical try anything phase.

#52 | Posted by ABH at 2023-01-25 04:24 PM | Reply

"But on a macro scale we are failing our kids and we are legit at the critical try anything phase."

Everything you guys want to try has the same common theme:
Less money to public schools.

Maybe expand your concept of "anything."

#53 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-01-25 04:26 PM | Reply

You say "you guys." You have no idea who I'm affiliated with politically. Like at all.

#54 | Posted by ABH at 2023-01-25 04:32 PM | Reply

I am pro strengthening teachers unions. I am pro arresting ------ that disrupt school district meetings. And totally on board with providing little to no weight to parents involvement in curriculum choices. No Child is being "indoctrinated" into a liberal agenda. That's horse pucky.

I'm also pro initiatives like this because they fix the problems short term. All of the other fixes mentioned address the problem in 10 years once the full effect can be seen. And dooms yet another generation of kids to low scores.

But go ahead and tell me you know where I am politically.

#55 | Posted by ABH at 2023-01-25 04:37 PM | Reply

So, some appear to not get it.

1. Tax money going directly to, primarily, religious institutions. I have a major problem with that personally
2. Those religious institutions do not have to meet the same standards as public schools.
3. Those religious institutions/private schools are not located in rural areas.
4. Iowa public schools were NOT failing-24th ranked state overall-so what is prompting this action?
5. Taxes will have to be raised or programs cut to implement this program-State funding is covering the students whether they attend public or private schools, and an additional 15.8% of that student's cost to the school where they do not attend-so the state's spending increased 15.8% with zero setoffs-Busing, teachers, aids, special ed all will have to remain unchanged. I think it obvious on its face that this will require either a major tax increase OR reduction in services or funding for other programs.
6. Most parents will still have no choice. The schools select/accept the students, NOT the parent/child. Parents who cannot afford the tuition, people who do not meet the school's demographic (i.e. jewish, muslim, poor, minority, LGBTQ, non-english speaking) will be stuck at the public schools-which will receive less funding.
7. This will have zero impact on funding of the MIC
8. Public money that goes to private companies goes through a contracting or public bidding process-not a direct handout. Private schools thus will have no or reduced standards to meet-something no public contract should ever allow. This is a process ripe for abuse and corruption.
9. This is a handout to the upper and middle class that pay for private schools.
10. I don't believe that private schools are necessarily better at teaching children. Any difference in educational results is likely based on the "quality" of the student-more motivated, from a more stable environment.

#56 | Posted by truthhurts at 2023-01-25 04:57 PM | Reply

Reducing overhead is a great way to make sure more dollars end up where it should be.

This does not address overhead.

#57 | Posted by truthhurts at 2023-01-25 05:02 PM | Reply

Your "belief" in test scores having nothing to do with the learning environment isn't supported by evidence. If it is, I'd like to see it.

If you have independent audit days of the costs to support your math, again, I'd like to see that.

Most of the parents I know here that have their kids in private school is because it is a private institution that caters to children with very special needs. I know very few that leave the public system for regular private teaching. This type of payment system would result in more funding to the public schools since their kids aren't in public school anyway, and relieve the unbelievable financial burden they face having kids with extreme special needs.

But I ALSO know that my anecdotes aren't evidence of the big picture.

#58 | Posted by ABH at 2023-01-25 05:06 PM | Reply

#57 no one said it was. I was agreeing with a "what if" type scenario from snoofy.

#59 | Posted by ABH at 2023-01-25 05:07 PM | Reply

Umm, well I believe it self evident in many ways. Students who attend private schools are, generally speaking, more motivated educationally-they are paying for the education above and beyond what they pay for taxes that cover public schools.

AND

press.uchicago.edu

Drawing on two large-scale, nationally representative databases, the Lubienskis show, however, that this difference is more than explained by demographics"private school students largely come from more privileged backgrounds, offering greater educational support.

www.publicschoolreview.com

The results of a new study show that private school education may be no better than public school education. SNIP After reviewing data from over 1,000 students, researchers from the University of Virginia found no evidence to suggest that students from low-income families and children enrolled in urban schools benefited more from private than from public school education.

#60 | Posted by truthhurts at 2023-01-25 05:13 PM | Reply

If you have independent audit days of the costs to support your math, again, I'd like to see that.

IDK what this means.

#61 | Posted by truthhurts at 2023-01-25 05:14 PM | Reply

Most of the parents I know here that have their kids in private school is because it is a private institution that caters to children with very special needs. I know very few that leave the public system for regular private teaching. This type of payment system would result in more funding to the public schools since their kids aren't in public school anyway, and relieve the unbelievable financial burden they face having kids with extreme special needs.
But I ALSO know that my anecdotes aren't evidence of the big picture.

#58 | POSTED BY ABH

umm, i think you are conflating here.

Kids with extreme special needs (i.e cerebral palsy, severe autism, etc.) aren't in the public school system to begin with and if they are they are not going to be switching over to a private school (certainly not on large scale numbers).

Public schools do cater to some special needs (probably most), i.e. behavior or milder cognitive disabilities, but again, those kids will not be switching schools.

You are correct, the schools would have some more money, but that requires tax increases.

And again, why? Iowa is 24th in the nation in education, that is not a statistic screaming for radical change.

#62 | Posted by truthhurts at 2023-01-25 05:19 PM | Reply

"Special needs" is broader than kids with physical and mental deficiencies. MAGNET programs proclaim the students that qualify are "special needs" as well - as in needing a more challenging curriculum and learning environment.

#63 | Posted by BellRinger at 2023-01-25 05:48 PM | Reply

You say "you guys." You have no idea who I'm affiliated with politically. Like at all.
#54 | POSTED BY ABH

Okay.
We can keep it that way if you like.

#64 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-01-25 06:00 PM | Reply

"Special needs" is broader than kids with physical and mental deficiencies. MAGNET programs proclaim the students that qualify are "special needs" as well - as in needing a more challenging curriculum and learning environment.

#63 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER A

hey look captain obvious (the liar) joined the conversation.

#65 | Posted by truthhurts at 2023-01-25 06:28 PM | Reply

"Most of the parents I know here that have their kids in private school is because it is a private institution that caters to children with very special needs."

Why even bother saying that?
You know damn well it's not representative of most private school kids.

(It is however representative of you having special needs, e.g. blindness.)

#66 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-01-25 06:38 PM | Reply

"I'm also pro initiatives like this because they fix the problems short term."

I mean, if it turns out Iowa private schools can turn poor black public school failures into poor black private school victories, I would probably support the program too.

I just think that's pie in the sky. I also don't think that's even the point of the legislation. As I have been clear, I think the point of this legislation is to give preferred customers (whites; smart kids) opportunities that others (blacks; average to dumb kids) won't be getting. The only winners are the privileged.

I'm curious how you can look at the last thirty years of Republican education legislation and arrive at a different conclusion, but that's not really here nor there.

#67 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-01-25 06:44 PM | Reply

"...children with very special needs"

That was ABH? My bad. It reads exactly like JeffJ.

#68 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-01-25 06:45 PM | Reply

#63 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER AT 2023-01-25 05:48 PM | FLAG: ------- DUMBASS ------------

#69 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2023-01-25 09:40 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2023 World Readable

Drudge Retort