Last updated on 2018-07-10
KOTA TV makes a couple of interesting notes about Senate Bill 159, the stealth vouchers bill signed into law by Governor Dennis Daugaard two weeks ago:
- The stealth voucher plan was drafted with help from the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice… as in Milton Friedman, who called our public schools “wretched” and was all for privatizing K-12 education. The Friedman Foundation works with ALEC on this pro-corporate issue.
- KOTA reports that Rob Monson, School Administrators of South Dakota exec, “said his group was considering starting an initiated measure effort to overturn the law.” KOTA’s use of the past tense and the term initiated measure confuse me: SASD was thinking about it or is thinking about it? SASD would try an initiated law, which they couldn’t start circulating until after this year’s general election to place on the 2018 ballot, or they would do a referendum, which they need to start circulating now to freeze SB 159 and place on the 2016 ballot? Either way, don’t just stand there, SASD—do something!
Black Hills education advocate Carol Hayse (hey! she’s been here before!) joins Monson and Cathy Brechtelsbauer in saying SB 159 is bad for South Dakota:
A recent news cast in Rapid City characterized SB 159, signed by the governor, as a defense against using vouchers to fund education in SD. In fact, this bill is actually a “stealth voucher” program. Vouchers are a method for states and municipalities to give money directly to private providers of educational services. They are often characterized by the euphemism “education scholarships.”
What is wrong with giving my tax dollars to private educational entities? Here are a few things.
- This money is rarely “new” money. It is usually money that comes out of local school districts, thus reducing funds for authentic public education.
- The use of these funds is UTTERLY unaccountable. There are rarely provisions for state or local boards of education to track the quality of education provided. In fact, such schemes around the country have been a gold mine for embezzlers and fraudsters—the money is simply pocketed.
- A fundamental promise of the US Constitution is separation of church and state. This kind of educational funding is used to prop up religious education around the country, including very numerous Islamic education centers, Jewish schools, Christian schools, etc.
- The largest study to date of such “scholarship” schools was conducted in Louisiana. It tracked 6000 students who won vouchers by lottery. It found that those who received vouchers and moved to private schools had worse scores in reading, math, social studies and science than those who did not receive a voucher.
SB 159 should be repealed, and a law enacted in SD which forbids all forms of education which are unaccountable to educational standards and tax payer accountability.
Carol Hayse
Nemo, SD
Unaccountable, unconstitutional, and ineffective privatization of public schools—listen to Hayse, Monson, Brechtelsbauer, and me. Whether by referendum, initiative, or a few new legislators, we need to repeal SB 159 and save our public schools and our kids from ALEC and the Friedman Foundation.
Stand firm against attacks on public education and uphold the separation of Church and State. I attended and taught in public and private schools and the quality of education was consistently higher at public schools.
I have mixed feelings on this issue, as it seems both sides lack objectivity. For example, Carol Hayse links to a US New & World report article that initially focuses on a Louisiana (LA) voucher program as purportedly supporting her position that students suffer under such programs; however, other sections of the article offer a different perspective.
Please consider the section “In fact a majority of the 13 research-based evaluations of such [voucher] programs found statistically significant benefits on academic outcomes” (this occurs after a paragraph pertaining to a 2012 longitudinal study of Milwaukee’s Parental Choice Program which “found that voucher students had higher high school graduation and college enrollment rates as compared with their peers in traditional public schools.”
One thing I am curious about is possible intervening impact of the “lottery” aspect on the LA program versus the WI program(s). Namely, could parents of students subject to selection by lottery be more passive participants in their students’ education and figure there is no harm in submitting an application and “playing the odds” but not being involved in their students’ education whereas parents in WI could be more proactive and involved in their students’ education?
The USNWR article mentions a Dr. Wolf (whose name is later misspelled “Wolfe”) who makes an this statement fairly early in the article (following the initial discussion of the LA outcomes) — ‘I can’t reveal what we found … but I’ll sat the results are different in interesting ways.’ Fortunately, we do not need to rely on the media or individuals on either side of the debate for Dr. Wolf’s research; it is available here: http://www.uaedreform.org/louisiana-sseep-evaluation/.
Possible relevant side note — Dr. Wolf’s research is funded by the Smith Richardson Foundation, which has a reputation for supporting “conservative causes” (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Smith_Richardson_Foundation).
I should also reveal my own biases. I prefer expanded opportunity for students, ideally in public schools; however, I do not want students to languish in public schools under the guise of separation of church and state or devote public funds to private schools under the guise of “correcting the education market.” Student opportunities should be expanded in an equitable, informed manner, and this requires an unbiased examination of the research (which may refute personal stances).
All those kids going to private school are saving the state public schools some money. That does not mean that the state should pay all their costs. When I was in high school in Minnesota the state decided to pay thirty percent of the tuition in a tax break to the parents. That was from a democrat gov and legislature. It is the parents choice which school to send their kids to, not an insurance corporations choice. Our principal said that we would not ask for more since we did like some help but not so much that we would want the state to tell us what to do. We did have all our teachers accredited by the state standards because we did not want to accidentally not have a good quality education.
When I was young a Christian school of the same group I went to included the Sioux Falls Christian school and also a Christian school on the Navajo reservation in New Mexico. The one in New Mexico with mostly native students had eighty percent going to college. Our white schools did not have that high of college rate.
§ 16. Public support of sectarian instruction prohibited. No appropriation of lands, money or other property or credits to aid any sectarian school shall ever be made by the state, or any county or municipality within the state, nor shall the state or any county or municipality within the state accept any grant, conveyance, gift or bequest of lands, money or other property to be used for sectarian purposes, and no sectarian instruction shall be allowed in any school or institution aided or supported by the state.
Article 8
Seems to me to be pretty straightforward and unambiguous. But then I’m from iowa.
Why should public schools have a legalized monopoly? I see this is a fine way to improve education. One of the reasons are schools are failing many of our students is they have become bloated with administration We must remember we are all entitled to a Fred eduction, there is no process by law to tell us how to do it. SB 159 adds another tool to the tool box to lower the cost of eduction.
The private schools are much more efficient and with a lower cost per student. I am sure this bill scares the NEA and it should. Education seems to think they should let have a blank check.
If the public system improves the quality of their product the private schools will not survive, however this does not appear to be the case, they just want to cry fowl. If money shifts to the private schools the public schools can also down size.
It is time to start reducing the cost of eduction. This is the perfect way
Bravo.
mfi, could the grey area be that students are receiving the scholarships, and thereby the direct benefit, rather than a “sectarian school” directly receiving the “aid”?
Could be,Jake, however the state is handing public money to insurance companies to fund private education. The state is deliberately end running the constitution they swore to uphold. Those scholarships aren’t needed to pay for “public” schools, so they have to be for ineligible schools.
Sam@-parents have the right to place their kids in non-public schools. They do not have a right to expect government funds to pay for those schools. You righties always want “special” rights. How does it help public schools to steal money from them to appease likely wingnut voters?
PRIVATE schools are not entitled, by the constitution, to public finds or public help. Doesn’t the constitution mean anything?
“
why do insurance company(ies) want to donate to scholarships and get a tax credit? good PR? a tax plan we don’t understand?
Mark and Mike are spot on! Both the US and SD constitutions are perfectly clear on this. Perhaps it requires the reading comprehension skills gained from a good PUBLIC education to understand that “clear and unambiguous” language?
Hopefully an immediate court challenge will prevent the administration from unconstitutionally appropriating public resources for religious schools. Any reasonably intelligent or politically-unbiased judge will see right through the insurance-based money laundering scam. (Is money laundering legal in SD?)
For some folks, the constitution is apparently meaningless except for the 2nd Amendment sentence that mentions guns.
Does anyone wonder why Japan and Sourh Korea consistently rank higher than the USA in key education measures?
Speaking from 18 1/3 years in Aisia:
Longer school days
Longer school years
School uniforms
Discipline in school
Cultural respect for educators
Gender Segregated classes
Academic competitiveness for high school and college placement
Any sports activities are clubs that are not publicly funded and occur after/before school hours
School choice has repeatedly been shown to be a good thing in the USA. Any chance to get state and federal involvement out of our children’s’ education, and the educational decision making back in the hands of parents, is Something I can support.
“Why should public schools have a legalized monopoly?”
Why should every one’s guns be regulated?
So my kids, so Little Thunder’s kids, so Sad Grandma’s takoja are assured a competitive education regardless of everything else, so they to can sit on the FCC like Stan Adelstein’s child, for example.
and, so the rest of us don’t die in a hail of your bullets in 2016.
Survival. Basic rights.
So some one in SD, a republican (I kno some dems may have supported it) is convinced to pass a bill giving a subsidy to an insurance company(s) for a donation to a religious or private school. refer the law! vote the republicans out. simply said. not so simple a burden to surmount.
Sam: same reason police and the Army have a legalized “monopoly.” We cannot count on the private sector to provide certain basic public goods and rights to every citizen equally. The private sector will discriminate against the poor and other disadvantaged minorities. Only the state can guarantee the fulfillment of the state’s constitutional obligation to provide free, fair, and adequate education to all citizens.
Janette McIntyre, my dear friend, is running as a repub in dist 34 I think and I may even vote for her because of that. but more likely not. when she returned to RC she asked me for a favor to get a family member employed and then asked how she could get public money to educate her kids in private or religious school. that’s how it works in the SDGOP. totally different world view. “I want what I want.”
Stace, you are gonna tout guns no matter what, and hopefully you won’t get elected. that’s how it works. the greater good for the majority in the nation.
so, the overwhelming republican strategy is Faux propaganda and restriction of voter rights for those who don’t agree with you. whose side do you wanna be on? seems pretty clear to me. and you’ve already seen what happens when you stand up to your party.
join us.
Stace, what’s the ratio of public school students to private school students in Japan and Korea? Are private schools shown to produce higher test scores than their public school counterparts in those countries? And does the government fund those private schools? Do Japanese and Korean insurance companies get tax credits for sending kids to religious schools? Explain the mechanism in K-12 education in Japan and Korea that justifies SB 159 here in South Dakota.
I really can’t see into Stacy Nelson’s mind, but I suspect his listing of factors in Japanese schools were in the way of suggestions as to what make American education better. As Cory indicates, however, that has nothing to do with reasons for government to unconstitutionally support private or religious schools.
Japanese and Chinese schools may be good at instilling math and other knowledge, but they do not have good records for stimulating curiosity and creativity.
It’s the uniforms. That makes the difference. I agree with Mr. Nelson.
This isn’t rocket science. You CAN choose to send your child/children to any school you want,but, if it is not a public school,the taxpayers do not, cannot, should not, and better not pay for it. That is clearly and concisely written in the constitution of your state. Why can’t you understand that?
You got to wonder about the inconsistency of wingnuts: they want smaller government in the case of business regulation, bigger government when it comes to a woman’s relationship with her doctor, smaller government when it comes to gun rights, bigger government when it comes to supporting private school education, smaller government when it comes to privatizing EB-5, bigger government when it comes to federal government oversight of EB-5, etc., etc.
They say follow the Constitution when the 2nd Amendment is at issue. They say don’t follow the Constitution when private school tuition paid through the government is at issue.
It is all very perplexing.
also for higher ed there’s this:
http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/04/the-pillaging-of-americas-state-universities/477594/
state legislators seem to be ignoring public opinion as they essentially starve some of the best universities—those that educate about two-thirds of American college students
A couple commenters have mentioned conservatives’ fixation on the 2nd Amendment, but might we liberals be guilty of similar constitutional reification when it pertains to the separation of church and state in this debate?
SCOTUS ruled in Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn [http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-987.pdf (pg. 14)] that “When the government declines to impose a tax, by contrast, there is no such connection between dissenting taxpayer and alleged establishment.” Moreover, SCOTUS addresses the argument that the existence of such credits could eventually result in legislators increasing taxes to recoup lost funds on pg. 8-9. In short, it finds the latter argument extremely difficult to prove and thereby uncompelling.
Rightly or wrongly, if the funds were never added to public coffers, they are not considered public funds and thereby not subject to the church-state separation.
Jake C- what is to stop insurance companies or even churches from starting their own, privately funded schools?
It is my thought that dumbass dubya brought this whole idea of public money for religious groups out in public. Another reason to impeach his worthless hide.
mfi, I think that is a separate issue, and could that be ideal? More specifically, opponents of the tax credits would say “if these entities want to be involved in education, they can establish their own educational institutions with their own funds.” Where that could become interesting (and I would argue short-sighted) is if such institutions have narrow educational foci and/or poorly prepare students for higher ed. Then, if/when those students attend state universities and require remedial instruction, one could argue that they will result in the diversion of public funding from conventional instruction to remedial instruction (whether directly or through the need of increased remedial staff). Should such a diversion of resources occur, and opponents can provide valid evidence of its existence, they may have a case for the detrimental impacts of these educational developments.
My point is that liberals do ourselves a disservice by focusing on church-state when it would appear SCOTUS has addressed the issue. I suppose we could hope to revisit the issue if we elect a Democrat in Nov. who can appoint more liberal justices.
Where that could become interesting (and I would argue short-sighted) is if such institutions have narrow educational foci and/or poorly prepare students for higher ed. This is it in a nutshell, Jake. No one ever wants to talk about the failed charter schools, the ones that were for profit, did not have equivalent standards as public schools,were allowed to select only the best students and didn’t have to accept any with handicaps. Public schools are charged with accomodating any and all students. Another problem is the relentless assault on public schools and teachers by the vicious right side in this country. They have,imo, deliberately tried to make public schools fail and rouse their constituents to demand private schools. A large part of wingnuts policy is to starve the government,including schools, so they can cut,cutmcut social programs and privatoze them.
Your first point is misleading. For every child leaving the public system over this law, the system loses up to $2300. Considering it costs about $10,000 to educate each child, the system will have more money PER CHILD because of this law. When you consider that only low income families qualify, it could save even more money since low income students tend to cost more to educate