This morning I had the proud honor to stand up in defense of Iowa public schools by speaking in front of the House Subcommittee for Education. The subject of this meeting was to discuss HSB 651, a proposal to introduce a voucher system in Iowa; whereas private schools would have access to public funds for tuition and other education related expenses. At a time when our public schools have been historically underfunded, it is inconceivable and highly inappropriate to advance a bill that undoubtedly will funnel even more funds away from our public schools, the backbone of our democracy. Although my testimony in front of the subcommittee was time limited, I am grateful to be given the opportunity to speak. The full text of my prepared statement is included below.
To begin, I would first like to express my gratitude for the work of this committee. I do believe that each of your care deeply about the young people in our state and want for them to have the very best educational experience they can. For certain, there have been policy changes during this 87th General Assembly that will shape the educational landscape of our state for generations to come. Further, I am thankful that I have the opportunity to contribute to this conversation here today, and for the good fortune I have to engage with Representative Rogers, who not only chairs this committee, but is my locally elected Representative. Mr. Rogers and I speak regularly, and I am pleased to be one that he seeks input from on a consistent basis. I ask you to please hear my input today and respectfully request that you reject HSB 651 in its entirety.
Notwithstanding the draconian financial implications for Iowa public schools outlined in Division II, section 3; this proposal is deeply flawed. For certain, this bill is incompatible with other legislative priorities that are being debated by this body. As one example, we saw yesterday a productive discussion about transportation and district cost per pupil inequities in our educational system. We witnessed a dialogue that, by its very nature, was designed to improve the inequities in our public school system. Today, I submit to you HSB 651 is the antithesis of those efforts.
Take for example Division II, subsection 3(a-g). It is in this section we learn the sum of the proposed savings grant is ninety percent minus the local property tax portion of the cost per pupil for public school students, plus 90% of the supplemental amount for each category. Under current open enrollment laws, the local (receiving) public school district is not eligible to receive the supplemental amount for each category. This undoubtedly creates an inequity. For certain, the aforementioned scenario will likely propagate a condition where the student receiving the Educational Saving Account will generate more revenue than the open enrollment student.
In the same division, subsection 8(a) creates another alarming inequity when it states that 'any pupil with a positive balance'...upon graduation...may use those funds for higher education costs for virtually any accredited post-secondary education institution in the State of Iowa. This indeed would put those who participate under the 'Educational Savings Account' program at a tremendous advantage over their public school counterparts.
Perhaps the most egregious inequity in this bill can be found again in Division II, subsection 9. My friends who are proponents of this bill will contend that it is through competition that we will improve educational outcomes for all. The theory that a 'rising tide will lift all boats' I believe, is based on the premise of fairness. After all, the 'tide' of which we speak in this metaphor impacts each boat equally. This paragraph is anything but. In this section, it is made clear the nonpublic school does not, in fact, have to adhere to the same academic admission standards as the local public school. To further emphasize and expand on that theme, the final sentence of that paragraph states, "Rules adopted by the department to implement this section that impose an undue burden on a nonpublic school are invalid." In essence, what we will have here is a public school system operating under one set of rules, while the nonpublic school operates under another.
Where the shortcomings in this bill are numerous, I have outlined but a few. It is for those reasons I again respectfully request this proposal be rejected in its entirety.
No comments:
Post a Comment