Trump’s school-choice plan to be released soon — and it looks like a game-changer

[james_1957]

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos will reportedly provide details of the Trump administration’s school-choice plan on May 22 at a summit hosted by the American Federation for Children, DeVos’ former organization.

According to a report by Politico, DeVos is expected to release the administration’s plan to create a national tax-credit scholarship program that could provide billions of dollars to low- and middle-income families to pay for greater education options.

In September, then-candidate Donald Trump rolled out a $20 billion block-grant proposal that would have provided states with access to federal funds for creating school-choice programs.

The plan DeVos is expected to outline on May 22 will likely be more similar to the Educational Opportunities Act, legislation proposed by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Sen. Todd Rokita (R-Ind.) in 2013. Under that proposal, which was not approved by the House or the Senate, would have provided individuals with a tax credit amounting to as much as $4,500 for donating money to nonprofit scholarship-granting organizations, which would then provide scholarships to low-income students for use at public or private schools, including religious schools. Corporations could receive a tax credit worth up to $100,000 for their donations.

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/0...leased-soon-and-it-looks-like-a-game-changer/

 

[Ms_Ann]

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/0...leased-soon-and-it-looks-like-a-game-changer/

If you live in a town of 2000 there typically aren't a lot of school choice options.

 

[about_average]

Yay! Even more of my tax dollars going to religious institutions.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Yay! Even more of my tax dollars going to religious institutions.

This is precisely why judges will treat this like the so-called "Muslim ban."


Leftists don't want your survivor of abortion anywhere near religion.


Not even on fucking Sunday...

 

[james_1957]

Yay! Even more of my tax dollars going to religious institutions.

To recap...

If a woman decides to kill her unborn child at a Planned Parenthood butcher shop, it's ok to use public funds.

But if a woman decides to send her child to a religious school, it's not okay to use public funds.

Is it your belief that it's okay to use public funds to kill our kids, but not to educate them?

 

[water505]

Since they lost the election Leftists have undergone some type of political conversion regarding the constitution and taxes.

 

[Disgustipated]

To recap...

If a woman decides to kill her unborn child at a Planned Parenthood butcher shop, it's ok to use public funds.

But if a woman decides to send her child to a religious school, it's not okay to use public funds.

Is it your belief that it's okay to use public funds to kill our kids, but not to educate them?

Public money doesn't fund abortions.

 

[james_1957]

Public money doesn't fund abortions.

However, abortions are actually not a big part of what Planned Parenthood says it does — 3 percent of the services it provided last year were abortion-related.

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallp...lanned-parenthood-spend-that-government-money

You can't count on the Illinois General Assembly to pass a balanced budget. But you can count on lawmakers to pass heater bills that are sure to show up in campaign materials during the next election cycle. And so on Tuesday, House lawmakers passed a bill that would significantly shift long-standing state policy on taxpayer funding of abortions. The bill, now headed to the Senate, would include abortions as covered procedures in the health plans of Medicaid recipients and state workers.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...ion-funding-medicaid-edit-20170426-story.html

A new law will go into effect on July 1 taking $2 million from low-income families and giving it to Planned Parenthood.

A law requiring Maryland taxpayers to fund Planned Parenthood if the federal government defunds the abortion merchant will go into effect on July 1. The law sat on Gov. Hogan’s desk but did not receive his signature or a veto. This means, without his support, the law will go into effect. Why the self-described pro-life governor did not veto the legislation is unclear.

The law stipulates that if the federal government defunds Planned Parenthood, Maryland will take $2 million from the Medicaid fund for low-income families and give it to the abortion chain. Another $700,000 from the state’s general fund will also be given. Rather than helping low-income families with their healthcare, Maryland has decided to prioritize abortion. And all of it will be paid for with our tax money.

http://nathancherry.com/2017/04/26/...from-low-income-families-to-pay-for-abortion/

A pair of bills in Nevada would create a state family planning fund to plug gaps in contraceptive coverage and codify Obamacare regulations into state law. And in Oregon, Democrats are optimistic about the chances of legislation that would guarantee that insurers cover contraceptive care and even abortion services at no out-of-pocket cost to plan beneficiaries.

The moves come amid growing signs that federal funding for Planned Parenthood and other groups that provide abortions is at risk.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/state-lawmakers-rush-protect-funding-planned-parenthood/

The data speaks for itself and paints a clear picture of how undeserving Planned Parenthood is of those dollars. While politicians and abortion advocates tout a variety of Planned Parenthood’s health services in an attempt to justify federal funding for the organization, many of those same services are drastically declining.

So what isn’t declining at Planned Parenthood? Two things: abortion and taxpayer funding.

https://www*****sitenews.com/opinio...unds-over-a-decade-planned-parenthoods-health

 

[KingOrfeo]

It changes the game from chess to tic-tac-toe. The profit motive and education go not well together.

 

[Disgustipated]

Did james try to attempt something?

 

[BotanyBoy]

It changes the game from chess to tic-tac-toe.

No it just cuts public school's balls off if they don't perform.

The profit motive and education go not well together.

Good thing they are trying to attach the money to the kid instead of the school then right?

 

[KingOrfeo]

Good thing they are trying to attach the money to the kid instead of the school then right?

What difference does that make? The school gets it either way.

 

[BotanyBoy]

What difference does that make?

If the parents don't like a school, they can take the money elsewhere.

Unlike now ( the left's preference) where they just hold a gun to the peoples heads by zip code and force them to pay for shit service.

It's taking power DIRECTLY out of the hands of our education system and putting it back into the hands of the parents giving them a way to say "Nope, fuck you." and it terrifies the fucking shit out of Democrats.

If they pull this off without totally selling out the kids/parents of the USA like the (D)'s have consistently done hand in hand with establishment (R)'s I'm sending Trump a million bucks in 2020

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

If the parents don't like a school, they can take the money elsewhere.

Parents have always been able to do that.

Unlike now ( the left's preference) where they just hold a gun to the peoples heads by zip code and force them to pay for shit service.

No one holds a gun to anything now. If parents don't like what's going on in the school they have several options, they can vote in new board members or move.

It's taking power DIRECTLY out of the hands of our education system and putting it back into the hands of the parents giving them a way to say "Nope, fuck you." and it terrifies the fucking shit out of Democrats.

The education system is the parents & community and they would lose power with this bill.

If they pull this off without totally selling out the kids/parents of the USA like the (D)'s have consistently done hand in hand with establishment (R)'s I'm sending Trump a million bucks in 2020

This bill does nothing but sell out the parents and the kids. It jacks up the cost of education for the rich without giving them anything for it, and takes money away from the poor.

 

[about_average]

To recap...

If a woman decides to kill her unborn child at a Planned Parenthood butcher shop, it's ok to use public funds.

Nope, federal law prevents using federal dollars for abortion, or even telling women abortion is even an option.

Care to post something factual related to the OP and my reply?

As for the "Planned Parenthood butcher shop" rhetoric, I'm sure hospitals would take offense to you calling them "butcher shops".

 

[BotanyBoy]

Parents have always been able to do that.

Only by moving to a different zip code or paying out of pocket for private school.

Not really an option for most, especially the working class/poor.

No one holds a gun to anything now. If parents don't like what's going on in the school they have several options, they can vote in new board members or move.

Move or private school out of pocket is pretty much their only options...which isn't much of one especially if your not rich.

The education system is the parents & community and they would lose power with this bill.

No the education system is not the parents and community, it's bureaucrats shitting on the community. Has been for some time now.

How does giving parents the option to choose which school their kids go to a loss for anyone but the bureaucrats running shitty schools??

This bill does nothing but sell out the parents and the kids.

How?

It jacks up the cost of education for the rich without giving them anything for it, and takes money away from the poor.

How does putting the choice of where your kid and the funding for them in the hands of the parents/kids taking money away from the poor?

You sound worried, job on the line if you can't force the money out of those people via government force???

 

[KingOrfeo]

If the parents don't like a school, they can take the money elsewhere.

Moving from an underfunded public school to an adequately funded profit-oriented school might not really be an improvement in academic terms; likewise with a church-oriented school. There are private schools far superior to their public neighbors, but they are not profit-oriented (some are church-oriented or at least affiliated with a church), and they are nevertheless expensive, and I very much doubt vouchers would cover the tuition.

And, there are also social aspects -- this is a very old issue.

http://imagehost.vendio.com/preview/ha/haats/HW1870P140129.jpg

 

[about_average]

Only by moving to a different zip code or paying out of pocket for private school.

Not really an option for most, especially the working class/poor.

If, as republicans say about people in states where Ins companies decide to not cover preexisting conditions, that they can move to another state, why can't people move for better schools?

 

[BotanyBoy]

Moving from an underfunded public school to an adequately funded profit-oriented school might not really be an improvement in academic terms; likewise with a church-oriented school. There are private schools far superior to their public neighbors, but they are not profit-oriented (some are church-oriented or at least affiliated with a church), and they are nevertheless expensive, and I very much doubt vouchers would cover the tuition.

All (hopefully soon) up to the parents to decide, what's your point?

If, as republicans say about people in states where Ins companies decide to not cover preexisting conditions, that they can move to another state, why can't people move for better schools?

Because companies are consensual, they don't have the power and authority of violence and the state does.

Because consensual transactions are not the same thing as force of law.


Consent vs. force. How come it's so easy for the left to understand the difference between the two when it comes to sex but when it comes to money they act totally fucking clueless as to the difference?

 

[KingOrfeo]

All (hopefully soon) up to the parents to decide, what's your point?

Haven't we learned by now that market choice does not always produce optimal outcomes in all fields? To compete with public schools, private schools need not be good, only better -- and this plan will drain funding and therefore quality from the public schools, and the private ones will be under no competitive pressure to keep their quality up, and those oriented on a profit model rather than an academic excellence model will see no reason to try. The average quality of education available in a given district will decline. The effect is lessened to the extent private-oriented schools might compete with each other in quality strictly for marketing purposes, but in this field that kind of competition works so slowly that your kid might have graduated before it produces any noticeable improvement -- and if your local profit-oriented schools are cartelized as they well may be, such competition will not happen at all. The economics here are very similar to those governing utilities, which is why the best of them are public utilities, or private ones so closely regulated they might as well be; open the market in this field and you get Enron.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Only by moving to a different zip code or paying out of pocket for private school.

Not really an option for most, especially the working class/poor.
Moving is an option for everyone, it may not be an easy decision, but it's still a decision.



Move or private school out of pocket is pretty much their only options...which isn't much of one especially if your not rich.

Moving is an option for everyone, it may not be an easy decision, but it's still a decision. You also left out the option of holding elected officials accountable.

No the education system is not the parents and community, it's bureaucrats shitting on the community. Has been for some time now.

The parents & community vote for those bureaucrats, so it is the parents & community.

How does giving parents the option to choose which school their kids go to a loss for anyone but the bureaucrats running shitty schools??

Parents already have the option of choosing the school their child goes to.

How?

In the way I literally explained it in the previous post.

How does putting the choice of where your kid and the funding for them in the hands of the parents/kids taking money away from the poor?

Our current system offers 100% school choice, this bill offers less than that. You're openly advocating for less choice for parents. There's no guarantee a child gets in to a certain school under this bill, and the poor have the least chance of getting in.

You sound worried, job on the line if you can't force the money out of those people via government force???

Jobs quite secure, thanks.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

From what I gather, the plan is not to institute school choice from DC, but to grant the States the ability to choose what approach they want so it would seem that where the teachers unions are very powerful, places like California and Illinois, for example, there won't be any school choice unless other states develop models that produce greater results and increase parental awareness of the value of market choice.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Parents already have the option of choosing the school their child goes to.

Yes, they have an extremely limited and impractical choices, and this gives them more options.

Our current system offers 100% school choice, this bill offers less than that. You're openly advocating for less choice for parents.

You haven't explained how this bill offers less choice.....you just say it does.

How does attaching funding to your kids and giving you freedom to choose the school you want your kid to attend regardless of your zip code instead of "Move or go out of your own pocket." being the only options give them less options?

Jobs quite secure, thanks.

As you try to sell more choice as actually less without even an attempt at explaining such an absurd thing? Sure SGT.....sure.

 

[Conager]

Yes, they have an extremely limited and impractical choices, and this gives them more options.




You haven't explained how this bill offers less choice.....you just say it does.

How does attaching funding to your kids and giving you freedom to choose the school you want your kid to attend regardless of your zip code instead of "Move or go out of your own pocket." being the only options give them less options?




As you try to sell more choice as actually less without even an attempt at explaining such an absurd thing? Sure SGT.....sure.

That's unfair. Under-populated or even empty schools still require custodial staff.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Yes, they have an extremely limited and impractical choices, and this gives them more options.

100% choice isn't limited or impractical.

You haven't explained how this bill offers less choice.....you just say it does.

You already explained how this offers less choice, just like you said, this makes it consensual. That means that both parties must agree, the school & the parent, and there's no guarantee that a school will give consent. So if a kid doesn't have the right test scores, the right amount of money, the right clothes, a disability, is gay, has a bad haircut or likes soccer, the school doesn't have to take the kid. Which is a far cry from the situation we have now where if a school is getting public dollars they must take the kid.

How does attaching funding to your kids and giving you freedom to choose the school you want your kid to attend regardless of your zip code instead of "Move or go out of your own pocket." being the only options give them less options?

Because like you said, it's consensual.

As you try to sell more choice as actually less without even an attempt at explaining such an absurd thing? Sure SGT.....sure.

PLEASE explain how this bill offers more than 100% school choice.....I'm really looking forward to it.