House Appropriations has one bill on its agenda this morning. What a nice opportunity to focus their attention on killing a bad bill.
At 9 a.m. Central, House Appropriators take up Senate Bill 159, Senator Phyllis Heineman’s stealth voucher plan. House Appopriators should kill this bill today, for three main reasons:
- SB 159 is convoluted money laundering scheme to transfer public money to private schools. Such funding is unconstitutional.
- The Legislature has a constitutional obligation to maintain a uniform system of free public schools. The Legislature has no duty to support private schools.
- SB 159 runs counter to the Legislature’s constitutional duty to maintain public schools by seeking to lure students out of public schools, thus undermining funding for public schools.
- SB 159 launders its public money for private schools in the guise of tax breaks to insurance companies who fund scholarships for low-income students to private schools. Sponsor Heineman’s husband owns an insurance company. Sponsor Heineman is thus proposing a bill that will increase her family’s business profits.
Conflict with the Constitution, conflict of interest—the SB 159 stealth voucher plan is bad policy all around. House Appropriations should do its duty and kill this bill today.
It looks to me like Sen. Heineman’s husband owns an insurance agency, not an insurance company. No?
Even if the insurance company issues the scholarships and gets the tax break you can bet they will share the wealth to insurance agencies that sell policies to families of private school kids.
Why stop with insurance companies? Let’s let retailers keep collected sales tax money by giving scholarships to private school kids.
Private schools are mainly located in bigger cities, residents of rural SD have no access to private schools, this bill would have the effect of helping out more populated areas of the state at the expense of less populated areas.
I’m going to play devils advocate. We send public money to private entities all the time, so I don’t see that as reason unless you support defunding planned parenthood. The legislature has a duty to maintain free public schools, but I don’t believe they can’t subsidize taxpayers who decide to go the private route. They pay taxes just like everyone else, shouldn’t they be allowed to use their inputted taxes towards an education source they choose?…even if it means less money than they would bring to their public school? Public schools currently lure students from public schools doing the same thing and I know you support that, otherwise we would have closed a few smaller schools a long time ago. I don’t see why they are tieing in the tax breaks. I don’t have kids at the moment, but if I send my future children to private school, can I get a tax break on funding schools? I still haven’t figured out why there even is a child income tax credit. We have no reason to promote reproduction unless we are planning on WWIII.
Cory,
#1 is false. It isn’t a money laundering scheme and it isn’t unconstitutional. Many similar states have a similar mechanicsm.
#2 is misleading as this bill does take a single dime from public education.
#3 actually enhances support for public education. Many people like me who supported the tax increase did because it is good for kids. Giving low income families another education option is also good for kids. Whether kids go to public schools or private schools, they are all our kids. I am appalled to think being pro-education means only certain kids.
#4 is false. This bill does not one thing to enhance or detract from the insurance agency of Phyllis Heineman’s husband.
The tax increase passed because a lot of people who have never used public education and won’t use it understood the merits of paying teachers more money. If they had imagined that it was either/or, I am pretty sure the tax increase would have failed.
Also, because this program is only available to low income families, we have to consider some of the unique challenges students from such families face. My parish school serves three particular immigrant communities (Hispanic, Sudanese, and Burmese) and is located in a low income neighborhood. We work our tails off trying to raise the necessary tuition assistance. Our motive is simple- These are children who need the smaller classroom size our school has (yet can get certain special services across the street at the public school). We won’t stop our efforts for tuition assistance but we know we provide a more intensive experience for more kids. Not because we are better but because we have smaller classroom sizes. And, by taking a few kids from the public school, they can do better with the kids they have.
This is about kids. All kids.
Nick: There are a lot of private schools located outside the larger cities. You have Sunshine Bible Academy close to Highmore, Kranzburg, Salem, etc. The only reason there are more private schools in big towns is there are more students in big towns.
“Private schools are mainly located in bigger cities, residents of rural SD have no access to private schools, this bill would have the effect of helping out more populated areas of the state at the expense of less populated areas.”
How is it at the expense of less populated areas when city folk pay the same taxes?
Troy,
I went thru a Catholic school system and there numerous kids from lower income families in my class but the school system had various opportunities for those families so their kids could attend. A number of those kids did jobs at the school such as cleaning, helped serve lunch or whatever to help defray tuition.
There were scholarship funds from the Parishes and families that would sponsor kids.
Is this not enough?
I knew that the Catholic schools received Federal assistance in various ways but do you know what specifically? I’m thinking for example Dell Rapids St. Marys, O’Gorman or even Pope John Paul II in Mitchell.
This just does not seem right for some reason in that we as taxpayers and consumers will be paying for this somewhere else.
Our public schools whether we attend or send our children there or not are still a shared investment.
Catholic schools are smoke screens for a criminal enterprise and should lose their charters and accreditation.
Troy, Sunshine Bible is located over 50 miles from my home, not exactly a short drive. Plus there is no way this Catholic boy who, like his Church, believes in evolution, would have ever sent his kids to the evangelical, dominionist Sunshine Bible. The world is not 6000 years old.
To claim private schools are an option in the rural and semi rural expanses of South Dakota is to not understand the realities of rural South Dakota.
Troy,
My questions come from the perspective of valuing both private and public schools. I do not share Lar’s hatred of anything Catholic or religious based.
Personally it gave me an incredible opportunity to learn about my faith and have great relationships with those in the religious community I never would of had taking CCD classes while attending public schools yet as a society providing a quality and well supported public education is vital.
Lynn,
I’m not aware of federal money that go to private schools but some of the services that private school children receive at the public schools is federal funded. See my comment above. If they get it, it isn’t significant.
Our parish is a low income, lower middle income parish. We work hard at raising tuition assistance but never fully fund the need.
One other thing: Private schools save the taxpayers money. If they didn’t exist the need from the state and local property taxpayers would be higher (unless we were to spend less per kid). Between State Aid and local property taxes, we spend over $10K per student in the public system. This tax credit is $2,300 so for every kid that comes over saves the taxpayer money and requires us to even work harder at private donations.
We are willing to do it because we know for some of these kids we can do a better job. Not because we have a better system or better teachers but we marshall volunteer efforts to provide a holistic service to the family, especially with the immigrant children. While they are called “ministries”, they are not evangelization. We have people who visit their homes. If they need a kitchen table, we find a kitchen table for them. If they are having trouble navigating the banking system, we help them get that done.
When kids have a tough home environment, they have learning challenges. More immigrant children in our school doesn’t make it easier for us. They make for more work.
Finally, you are right. Our children are a shared investment. That is why I supported the tax increase. I am having a hard time grasping why only some children are a shared investment.
Exactly, Nick. Any christianic madrasa preaching creationism, denying the anthropocene and touting white supremacy should be denied public funding.
Nick,
I agree with you. In rural areas where they are having trouble keeping just one school open, they shouldn’t have two schools. Open enrollment is also not really an option in a lot of rural areas either. But, where there is more population, there are options. That is just reality.
Just as I don’t grasp why we are pitting private schools against public schools, I don’t grasp why we would pit rural areas against urban areas. This is about what is good for kids one child at a time.
The bill was tabled.
The vote:
SB 159, House Committee on Appropriations, Tabled
Bordeaux Nay Ring Yea Hunhoff (Jean) Yea
Partridge Nay Anderson Yea Romkema Yea
Jensen (Alex) Nay Dryden Yea Cronin Nay
Ayes 5 Nays 4 Excused 0 Absent 0
Thanks, Kim! Susan Wismer tweets that the bill was tabled without discussion. I’ll take a win any way I can get it, but after the bill’s success at the two preceding stages, I’d have liked to have heard the reasons that caused House Ed to view it differently.
Ah, Ror, that may be a valid point. If the insurance companies get the break, does the agent get a cut?
Dan, first big reason to oppose would be our constitutional obligation to support free public education for all. Second big reason would be that we not subsidize religious instruction. Is there any secular private school in South Dakota?
Troy, #1 is true. Senator Heineman wants public money to fund private schools. She knows she can’t just appropriate bucks straight from the state, so she has to launder it through tax breaks for insurance companies issuing scholarships. Same net effect.
#2 is accurate. SB 159 takes many dimes from public schools, both in reducing general fund dollars available to appropriate to public schools and in inducing more students to leave public schools, thus reducing the funds allocated to those public schools.
#3 is accurate. Your response does not cohere logically. you try to equate “public schools” with “kids”. Article 8 Section 1 makes no such semantic equation: it says “public schools”, not “kids”. I agree that helping kids is important, but the state’s first and I would argue only obligation in educating those kids is to offer them a public education system so awesome that parents would never want to send their kids anywhere else.
Your point about kids with special needs is sensible: if we can spread kids out to more service providers, we may ease the burden on overloaded providers. However, the proper state response in this situation is not to look for ways to get fewer kids to come to public school. The proper response is to hire more teachers, build more classrooms, and offer to do the job right for every kid. This issue is about all kids, and our commitment must be to provide those services for all kids, not count on private actors to do it for us.
#4 is true with my willing allowance for Ror’s technical distinction. SB 159 would have advanced the interests of the Heineman family business, since it would have allowed the insurers whose policies Mr. Heineman sells to make more more money, which, as Nick suggests would allow them to pay him more money.
Like Lynn, I value public and private schools. I’m fine with parents having the freedom to choose public school, private school, or home school. I’m not saying only some children are a shared investment. Our public school system offers to share our investment with every child. But if parents choose not to claim their share of that investment at public school, well, that’s their choice.
To offer a perhaps imperfect analogy, I’m fine with your having a choice between McDonald’s and Kentucky Fried Chicken. But McDonald’s has no obligation to hand out coupons to KFC… or, more accurately to SB 159, to give you free fries for giving a homeless guy a coupon to KFC.
Not sure how private schools save tax payers money,when tax dollars are siphoned out of school budgets and funneled to private and religious schools, It is happening in just about every state,especially those under wingnut control.
https://www.secular.org/issues/vouchers
Private schools receive tax money through vouchers.
The premium tax is a pass through to the state, Cory. The agent and agency don’t get any of it. The agent’s commission is not based in any way on premium tax.
Like Lynn I went to a Catholic school. I seem to recall that they get textbooks funded by the state on the theory that taxpayers would pay for those textbooks if the kids were in public school. Taxpayers certainly don’t need to fund family decisions to send kids to private school when there is (always) a public school available.
CH,
#1 This is as much money laundering as worker training tax credits, income tax credit, and every other program that diverts tax dollars to serve a public purpose. Your characterization is just a slur of the effort to allow you to not discuss the merits.
#2 That argument also says every public expenditure is a diversion of general funds that can’t go to public education. Government can and should do more than one thing to serve the interest of the public.
#3 You raise two points. Again, the government can and should do more than one thing to serve the public interest. Further, the state and federal government leverages private donations to feed, shelter and clothe the poor. Why can’t they do the same thing in education? It costs $10k to educate a kid and we are asking for $2,300 while the private donations cover the rest.
#4 This is flatly false. The insurance companies have two choices to use the tax credit and make a donation to the scholarship fund exactly equal to the tax credit. There is absolutely no benefit to the insurance company.
Mike from Iowa:
If just the Sioux Falls Catholic School System ceased to exist, the burden on the State and local government would go up over $20million to educate those kids. In short, it would eat up 1/3 of the tax increase just in Sioux Falls. Probably close to 60% if all the private schools ceased to exist. Private schools save the taxpayers signiificant money. This bill only asks for $2million ($2,300 per child) and goes 100% to provide partial tuition assistance for children from poor families.
The math is pretty simple. If 800 kids (max to use all $2mm) move from public schools to private schools, the savings is over $7mm even after the tax credit. And this doesn’t consider the cost of buildings, etc. in the cost of educating children.
Troy, the math is not simple unless you are assuming that all private schools go away. If you don’t assume that all private schools go away, then it comes down to the nitty gritty of how many kids came from a public school and in what class they would otherwise have been. Many schools have room for more kids in each class that would add very little to the cost of education. Other schools don’t have the room. But there is no way to say that the extra 800 kids you mentioned would reduce public school expenditures by X dollars. There are way too many variables.
To me this is clearly an excessive entanglement of government in religious affairs and the promotion of religious education at the expense of public education to a certain degree. I’m not going to overstate the effect of this bill, but it certainly opens the door to a huge slippery slope out the back door of increasing dollars for private education.
Can I apply for some money back for not driving my truck on the public highway? You might not have to build more roads or rebuild the road if I stop driving my semi on the public highway. Could I get some of that savings back in the form of a fuel tax credit? Could I build my own road and get a tax credit because I like to use my road better?
I also own some guns. If I buy some more guns, could I get a tax credit for reducing the need for SD national guard or US military to be as well armed for defense of the homeland?
Beyond the theoretical arguments, I have a problem with funding private religious education when we have struggled to get the legislature to prioritize public education funding, a constitutional requirement in SD. What do you hear from the people on the right who normally preach to respect our Constitution? Crickets!
If I had any confidence in the legislature prioritizing public education, I could live with this bill. But I have no such confidence.
If common core is not allowed in private schools, that alone should be reason enough to hope for some ability in that generation who suffered the fate. There is an old adage of not putting all your eggs in one basket.
Darin,
I’ve supported building schools by my vote and I support the sales tax increase despite my kids and grandkids not attending public schools because it is good for kids. Further, I will get no benefit from this program because my grandkids won’t qualify under this program. This isn’t about me getting a benefit or rebate.
Cory,
You stole my thunder on making a distinction between private secular schools and religious schools and I second your question, are there any private secular schools in South Dakota?
Any direct or indirect funding to private religious schools would seem to violate the Constitution’s position on the separation of church and state.
Argus Leader reporting smoke-out attempt by Gosch on SB 159 Monday afternoon on the House floor. Grab some popcorn folks and tune in at 2PM!
Roger,
Just as students can access federal loans or grants to attend the college of their choice, similar vehicles to attend the grade or high school of their choice is permissible under the Constitution.
In both cases, the government isn’t supporting religion. They are supporting education.
A similar idea is working SO well in Wisconsin:
“School administrators are reporting increases in the 2015 property tax levy directly related to the expanded private school voucher program, known as Wisconsin Parental Choice (WPCP) Program.
The tax increase stems from a change in funding for the statewide voucher program that was included in the state budget. In the past, the two-year-old Wisconsin program was paid for out of a separate state fund. This year, new voucher students will be counted in their home district’s total enrollment, and payment to the voucher schools will come out of state aid paid to the students’ home public-school district.”
http://mtea.weac.org/2015/12/03/school-districts-taxpayers-feeling-financial-pain-from-paying-for-private-school-voucher-students/
– See more at: http://www.prwatch.org/news/2015/07/12869/alec-school-vouchers-are-kids-suburbia#sthash.AmYiTlOe.dpuf
Dave, that is not even remotely similar. The source of these funds are not the state aid program.
If private schools are good for kids/society, then what is the next thing that insurance companies (or any tax paying industry for that matter) can argue ought to also be funded by public dollars? This all seems like an end run around the appropriations process for state dollars. If I say that free condoms are “good for kids,” should I be allowed to defer my taxes to the state to pay for private programs that provide those condoms?
Soon this will look like the federal tax code and what counts a “charitable” deductions. More and more the wealthy are doing an end-run around public funding to create their own government funding for programs of their choice. We all know “the pie is only so big” rhetoric; each dollar taken from the pie means a smaller slice for public education and/or other state provided social services.
Spend public money on public institutions; spend private money on private institutions. no one is saying that these insurance companies cannot continue to fund scholarships – just that they cannot spend the state’s money to do it.
“Government can and should do more than one thing to serve the interest of the public.”
Like what, Troy? End civil rights for women and minorities? Obstruct justice for clergy crimes? Create crony capitalism for South Dakota Republicans like Jeff Sveen? What else should government do?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/07/business/economy/the-right-wings-casting-agency-and-its-agent.html?hpw&rref=business&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=well-region®ion=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well&_r=0
Troy, “Just as students can access federal loans or grants to attend the college of their choice, similar vehicles to attend the grade or high school of their choice is permissible under the Constitution.
Good argument. It made me think. However, there is a distinction. The qualifying for assistance, be it scholarships, SNAP, or any other support program, is benefit entrusted to the receiver from the government. You are correct in that there is choice, even choice to spend that on private institutions. The distinction is that the paying of taxes is different. We do not get to allocate our taxes to only what we approve of or denote their use to only programs we approve of. The collection is a different issue form the dispersing of those dollars.
If the state would decide to fund private schools, through scholarships or other mechanism, then the legislature has to make that choice to allocate public funds in that way. This stealth system seems to only be an endure around legislators making that decision directly and publicly.
Finally, what is the need? Why does any child in SD need a scholarship of any kind to attend school when a FREE school has already been provided? The state has already provided a “full-ride” scholarship to every child (no matter of economic status) to any of the 151 schools districts in this state.
Heineman is an ALEC operative:
http://whyphyllis.com/Feature/
Troy, I don’t know how many times I heard from legislators through the years when I was arguing for higher funding levels for education that “the pie is only so big.” If the pie is only so big, than if you take pie for private education, then you take away pie from public education.
The argument that an unknown number of students in unknown grade levels that will come from unknown public schools will offset the tax deductions given to the insurance agency is highly speculative. If they are willing to rely on this speculation to support taking public funds for private education, what’s to stop them from increasing the program dollar-wise or going to a Wisconsin style program that takes directly from public school funding? Oh ya, nothing!
Get real! If this was a left wing idea, the wingnuts would be coming off the wheels calling this part of the national leftist conspiracy. Tell me the real agenda here by many behind this bill is not to undermine the public education system in the US? Many of these same folks want to get rid of the US Department of Education. You expect us all to believe that this isn’t the first battle in the coming war?
O,
What you describe is exactly what you propose.
The people who qualify (low income) apply for the scholarship to attend a private school (just as they apply for SNAP or college grants).
And, the money is funded via insurance companies who make a donation to the fund (they get a tax credit equal to 80% of what they donate).
Larry Kurtz- that is interesting, Ms. Heineman’s website shows that she opposed raiding the various state trust funds back in 2008. Now, I’m not exactly sure how her position differed from Mr. Van Gerpen. However, as I recall, they were both for finding the money for education under “rocks” and Van Gerpen specifically mentioned the trust funds as if they should be raided for one-time money to fund education. Ms. Heineman certainly never got up to argue we couldn’t or shouldn’t raid the trust funds proposed by Van Gerpen. Big rocks indeed!
Darin,
I supported the tax increase because it is good for kids. I supported the construction of a heck of lot of schools in the Harrisburg School District because it is good for kids. My kids attended private schools and my grandkids currently do. But they will not qualify for this program because it is targeted to children from poor families.
Your assumption this is an effort to undermine the public education system is not factually correct (otherwise explain how I supported like many other people whose children attend Sioux Falls private schools). It is mathematically impossible for the tax increase to pass with 2/3 vote in the house and this bill to pass with a majority without dozens of votes for both bills.
Mr. Larson, South Dakota’s legislature is loaded with nutballs like Heineman and Lee Schoenbeck.
Just so everyone knows, one of the most significant and ardent supporters of the tax increase to fund higher teacher salaries was Lee Schoenbeck, who also is a principal sponsor of this bill.
It is not an either/or question.
Troy, my comment was not meant to be read that you and some others that support the bill are angling to undermine public education. My comment was that many of the people that are behind bills of this nature in the US and some in SD are seeking to undermine public education. This bill is an opening salvo.
Increasing the sales tax will do little to end the teacher shortage and education crisis in South Dakota. It is a copout.
It’s the least the legislature could do and so that’s what it did.
Lee Schoenbeck is South Dakota’s Donald Trump.
Darin, while there are people with ill-motives on both sides of the aisle, doing the right thing is always right and not doing it because of some ill-motivated supporters doesn’t make sense.
This is a small amount of money ($1.6mm) and percent (0.4%) as compared to the $400 million (includes the recent sales tax increase) in State Aid to education.
It is targeted to those students (low income) who will most benefit from smaller class size.
Many believe the tax increase was critical to public education. This bill won’t make or break private education. But, failure for this modicum of support from the general public tells those parents who don’t use public education it is an either/or discussion. Public School kids vs. private school kids.
I’m not sure those who want greater support for public education want to draw a line that increases the number of people not concerned about public education. I know I don’t want to see that line drawn.
Troy, Help me clear something up (that I might have confused). Who directly puts the scholarship money in the child’s hand – the state or the insurance company? I thought this was about reimbursing the insurance companies for money they are spending. Am I wrong about the process?
Which part of failed state escapes, you, Troy? South Dakota won’t keep the best and brightest anyway:
http://www.argusleader.com/story/news/education/2016/03/05/teacher-pay-increase-wont-fix-shortage/81283240/
We won’t have Phyllis Heineman to kick around anymore. She’s not running again. There will be a GOP party primary for her seat, but she won’t be in it.
SB159 is nothing short of political opportunism at its best by a republican controlled legislature.
The people who qualify (low income) apply for the scholarship to attend a private school (just as they apply for SNAP or college grants).
Ever notice how red state pols have no compunction about taking away SNAP monies or funds for education grants,but funds for voucher use at private schools seems to go up every year?
How is that, Roger?
Troy, you realize that the entire k-12 education funding increase proposed in the governor’s budget, not including the new money for teacher pay in HB 1182, is .3%. So when you say that .4% is not much money, I agree, but its more than the general education increase proposed.
Also, K-12 education was cut 8.6% in Fy2011, then increased a paltry 2.3%, 3.0%, 3.36%, and 2.0%, respectively, in the succeeding years. So, your .4% is 20% of public k-12 education’s increase last year.
Darin, you need to run for the legislature!
SB 159 got smoked out and is on the House calendar on Tuesday.
And the Goschster delayed SB 131 to Tuesday. SB 131 passed!
Darin,
We provide roughly $340 million in State Aid. The $62 million for teacher salaries is an 18% increase in State commitment to education.
This bill is $1.6 million. The $62 million is a lot more than $1.6 million.
Darin, flee South Dakota while you still can.
$62 million is in anticipated receipts,is it not? It isn’t on hand and there is no guarantee that money will be available at once or even this year. True?
This bill is completely unneeded, as “O” pointed out the State of South Dakota provides full ride scholarships in the form of a free K-12 public education to every kid in the state who presents themselves at any public school in the state.
Mike,
The $62mm is the first allocation of the tax increase so the odds of the half penny ever generating less than $62mm is so remote as to be virtually impossible. If we ever collect less than $62million, we will have bigger disasters to worry about than just paying teacher salaries.
However, there is no guarantee the insurance companies will agree to donate $2,000,000 into this fund to get a $1.6mm tax credit.
So from a guarantee perspective, I’d say the $62million is a lock. The $2mm is less likely.
Nick, I talked to a guy here in Sioux Falls who sent three of his four kids to SFCS (his other wanted to go to Lincoln as that is where his friends were). I know of his generosity because many of those kids go to my parish school. He raises money and gives generously specifically for tuition assistance Hispanic families to have the same choice his family has. He told me: “If this bill fails, I’m done supporting anything for Sioux Falls Public Schools (he heard their lobbyist is working against it).”
Turn off the Sioux Falls Catholic School, Lutheran school, and Sioux Falls Christian communities from the public school system and bond issues and opt outs are about to get a lot tougher in Harrisburg, Tea, West Central, and Sioux Falls. Like I said before, education depends on an attitude of being for all kids. Every person for themself will not serve the public good.
Blackmail: how conservative.
What happens if the Roman church files for chapter 11 bankruptcy?
Forgive me. Not if but when.
Oremus. Lavabo.
GenXers are the pits.
Here in New Mexico private and charters schools have drained resources for public education leaving the state with nothing but failing grades.
http://www.abqjournal.com/736398/abqnewsseeker/gov-martinez-signs-bill-reducing-state-required-testing.html
troy- Private schools save the taxpayers money.
is this true?
leslie, troy lives in south duck because he has a mortgage the size a barge with no escape.
Leslie,
Absolutely. Private schools in Sioux Falls educate roughly 3,000 kids. Sioux Falls Public Schools educate about 23,000.
I don’t remember for sure but I think the cost to SFPS is about $10K per student translating into roughly $30million the State or local taxpayers don’t have to shell out every year to educate these students.
I don’t want us to get off track here. This program will not be available to most families/children who are in the private schools systems. Only children who come from poor families will be eligible for these scholarships. And, the scholarship is insufficient to cover the cost to attend these schools. We will still have to raise money from donations to cover the full cost of these students who come into our system.
What this does is give poor families a choice to send their student to a school with smaller class sizes (middle and upper income families have that choice). We fully understand taking these kids increases demands on our system for a lot of reasons. But, we welcome and desire them because it is our mission to lift and serve those who need hands up.
We have a great public school system here in Sioux Falls and I’m proud of that. They have great teachers. But so does the Sioux Falls Catholic School System and we have smaller class sizes. Because of these smaller class sizes, I know we can do a better job (not because we are better) both inside the classroom but our capacity to mobilize additional support to the families, especially for our Hispanic, Sudanese and Burmese families who we already serve as best we can.
Bernie Hunhoff was initially against this and now supports it.
As hard as Troy is defending SB159, I’m starting think he may have a vested financial interest in the bill.
BAH on all public financing of private schools! BAH!
Jenny, Did you mean to say that I needed to run from the legislature? :) I can’t right now, but I’ll be working to elect people who can make positive change happen in Pierre.
Larry, My ancestors stopped here in the 1880’s so I guess I’m stuck here. I’m too stubborn to leave. I’m still naïve and optimistic enough to think that we can bring some of these folks in Pierre kicking and screaming into the 21st century. If nothing else, some of them are getting old and feeble.
Mr. Larson, ‘tho Mr. Verchio walks with a cane he is a younger man than I and no doubt less feeble of frame. But I am stouter of mind.
Troy, “What this does is give poor families a choice to send their student to a school with smaller class sizes (middle and upper income families have that choice).”
Here is what bothers me. If you acknowledge that smaller class sizes attribute to student success, why isn’t the better argument to increase funding to public schools to reduce class sizes so that no families, poor or otherwise, need to flee to greener pastures. If this is really an argument about providing student opportunity, then provide class size reduction to ALL students.
I have a great respect for those who subsidize private school students’ tuitions, but I see that as a private decision of private funds – not public. Too often I see the complaining about taxation coupled with this and it becomes a backdoor elitist social “engineering” (to steal vocabulary from another thread) attempt.
Bernie, who?
Sioux Falls should be renamed Blood Run Falls to more conform to its fecal coliform form.
Mr. Troy, even with the cheaper salaried teachers the public schools are better for kids than your snobberish private overgodding schools. So sayeth grudznick.
Lar, they tell me that Bernie fellow is the leading progressive liberal in the Great State of South Dakota and set much of your personal agenda without you even knowing it. They tell me he’s a swell enough fellow, for a libbie.
Troy, I’ll run the risk that all private schools will shut down without this infusion of tax dollars.
“are there any private secular schools in South Dakota?”
Baan Dek Montessori school is less than a mile from my home.
Kind regards,
David
Roger,
Thanks for confirming why I coming here is a waste of time. Rather than discussing the merits, CH makes a false charge this is somehow good for insurance agencies and you make a false charge I have a financial interest in the bill.
Just like liars are the ones who call people liars, people who soak the system think everyone else is soaking the system. Your charge tells me more about you than you realize.
Troy has convinced me that private schools are the way to go for the youngsters in my family. They’ll get more attention from teachers, because their class sizes will be smaller (no pesky student-teacher ratio linked to teacher pay to worry about), and Fred Deutsch can’t discriminate against any of them with his goofy transgender bathroom bills. Bathroom and locker room privacy, it seems, is only a public school problem. Troy’s party has already shown, for decades now, that it abhors the idea of properly funding public education in the state, but has no problem giving tax breaks to private businesses so they can funnel public money to private schools using a method that’s a lot sneakier than a voucher program, so I’m waving the white flag.
I cannot comprehend how a measure that increases insurance company profits is not somehow good for insurance agencies.
David, Montessori is mostly preschool, isn’t it? SB 159 only covers scholarships for elementary and secondary education (Section 1, definition 7).
I just don’t think insurance agencies need tax breaks. Working and middle class families deserve tax breaks more than businesses that rake in millions of dollar each year.
Troy, are you blocked from writing a post at the Drunks Without Clues blog? Beg the proletariat pig to let you put up a post over there and see how many people care.
But so does the Sioux Falls Catholic School System and we have smaller class sizes.
Correct me if I’m wrong,Troy,but isn’t it your party’s pols that keep pushing for larger class sizes in public schools?
This stealth voucher process reminds me of the FLDS using SNAP benefits to finance a criminal enterprise.
Correct. Baan Dek takes children Kindergarten and younger.
Kind regards,
David
So it’s kindergarten age but not elementary education? SB 159 would send no money their way?
That would be interesting to see play out. SB 159 passes, Wellmark starts doing Kindergarten Montessori scholarships, claims the tax credit… then would the Dept of Revenue take them to court?
Anyway, that’s the only secular private school I can think of in the entire state, which happened to be the nearest private school to my house. I can’t even think of another private preschool.
Kind regards,
David