TimHauck

I'm not sure what this post has to do with what @RLLD altered my post to. I was saying that by allowing private schools to reject whoever they want, they can ensure it's only higher income folks, in part because they will be more likely to donate even if they don't have to pay all of the tuition. And yes, the higher income folks tend to skew white. So yes, what you described is likely exactly what will happen where school choice is implemented. Even though there may be grants/incentives that are targeted at low-income people, it will most likely be primarily utilized by higher income people, because the parents tend to be more involved in their kid's education, and also have more resources if for example there isn't transportation provided (not sure if that is the case in your scenario or Iowa's as far as transportation). And for the case of Iowa if it's a set amount, it may not cover the whole tuition but could incentivize families to go to a private school since they wouldn't have to pay as much as usual. But poor families still won't be able to afford it. So the most likely outcome is the public schools just get worse, even if they have more money to spend on a per student basis, since school test scores are not as dependent on teacher quality as they are on the income makeup and parental involvement of the student body. I grew up in South Jersey. What is the racial breakdown of Cumberland Regional HS? That school also scores poorly as far as I can tell but from what I remember did have a higher % of white students. But they're more often lower-income whites.

1) Yes, I'm sure there are people that were against the bill taking advantage of it. 2) Doing a quick search, it appears there are currently 482K K-12 public school students in Iowa. I'm not sure 16K signing up for free private school means a majority approve of the program.

I apologize for "speaking for" Hawkeye. But I stand by what I said. I bet some of the people upset about it now (both D's and R's) didn't pay attention until after the law passed.

Cool, thanks for agreeing with me that letting private schools reject students for any reason is wrong!

I honestly didn't see that post of his, you got me. The post I pulled that phrase from was a different one. But what I said still may be true and why Hawkeye is noticing more complaints now. Some Republicans likely voted because of the letter next to her name without researching her stances.

No, if it's what you said then there should be specific reasons that prospective students can be rejected, such as documented disciplinary issues.

I only read about this for like 20 minutes last night, but apparently she had tried 2 prior versions that didn't pass? And the one that passed included something saying like 30% of the money would be allocated towards rural schools? That part seems like it could be beneficial for rural areas (and if there are no private schools to lose students to they don't really "lose" anything). I don't agree with the part about the private schools being able to reject students for any reason though. That seems like just asking for preferential treatment for the higher income folks.

He said "they didn't know she was going to do it," not "she didn't campaign on this issue." Maybe they didn't pay attention and just voted because of the letter next to her name.

It’s ok, it’s not about the story being true, it’s about “spreading the message”

Not exactly. I don’t hate this idea: This dude has no shot with Trump in the race though. But if Trump is out, he’s got a shot.

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-poll/2023/03/19/iowa-poll-kim-reynolds-private-school-accounts-opposed-by-majority/69989541007/ Fairly small poll of 805 people, but 62% opposed including 51% of Republicans. I’m sure this will be discounted because it came from a Dem, but this also seems like a good reason to oppose Iowa’s particular program:

Any response @Casual Observer?

Professor Morris owning this dbag doctor all over x.com. No surprise @Reality believes everything his masters tell him.

Good thing Putin didn't nuke us so that we can talk about the Barbie movie in 3 different threads

The claim is that he needed to watch it in order to identify the victims supposedly

Sounds like something a lib would say!!

In other words, fiction. Thanks for agreeing!

Yeah, 52 year olds die. RIP though

But it’s OK if they marry their students as soon as they graduate and turn 18, got it.

I thought the GC said donating to charities isn’t how we can end child trafficking. But Tony Robbins says you just have to buy 30 dog tags.

Dude must think everyone lives in bumfock Indiana central time zone like him

Just to confirm, you have no issue if an 18 year old wants to chop off their breasts or or , correct?

Oh right, that’s about going to see a fictional movie to “spread awareness” about trafficking

I saw Mario during the day with the family. That was a kids movie. Barbie isn’t. Mario was way better though.

Lol, ok