DeSantis and his stupid laws

[Hardcore troubadour 14,924]

19 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

From what I can remember, the general public in Iowa were upset with the voucher program because Reynolds did not run on that policy.  A lot of people would not have voted for her if they knew that was what she was going to do.  It's too late now so we'll just have to see how it works.

You said the teachers were upset. 

[Hawkeye21 2,381]

1 minute ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

You said the teachers were upset. 

Correct.

[TBayXXXVII 2,482]

8 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

I remember seeing a decent amount of republicans upset with it because they didn't know she was going to do it before they voted.

Yeah, that's a bit surprising.

[Hardcore troubadour 14,924]

1 hour ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Yeah, that's a bit surprising.

Yea. Very surprising. Almost unbelievable. 

[Strike 5,185]

1 hour ago, Hawkeye21 said:

I remember seeing a decent amount of republicans upset with it because they didn't know she was going to do it before they voted.

You got some links to some polls or articles about all these upset "public" people? 

[TheNewGirl 1,344]

3 hours ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Seriously?  That's rather foolish.  Both have very important jobs and roles.  I see no reason why either should be treated differently.  Teachers are charged with developing the minds of the children and educating them to become successful adults.  Police are charged with providing a safety net for the public.  Both have high levels of responsibility in society.  Both are government funded.  I'd expect both to be handled similarly.  Tax payer money is funding their roles.  If the public feels that checks and balances are needed in police, there's no reason to not expect checks and balances for teachers.

People want dash and vest cams for cops.  Why?  Primarily to protect the cops, right?  Because we assume they're doing their job and we don't people making false claims and also giving the prosecution a stronger case, because it's no longer he said/she said, there's now video evidence.  What it also does is protect the public from overreach and making sure a citizens rights aren't being violated.  When they are, the cop is to be held accountable.

Why not the same for camera's in the classroom?  It's primarily to protect the teacher from frivolous claims made by students.  It protects and aids teachers in promoting themselves as good teachers, because that's what we're expecting from them.  What it also does is protect the students from being mistreated.  When something like that happens, the teacher is held accountable.

Back in the day, there was a lot of pushback from cops and their union about not wanting dash/body cam's.  What was the biggest reaction from Democrats (primarily)?  It was "Why, what are you afraid of".  How come there's no reaction similar for people wanting the same for teachers?

So, the difference between this is that cops aren't really liked much by Dems. ACAB right?  They think they are racist, abusive animals that see a person of color and immediately think guilty. They don't consider that cops are literally on the line every day with their lives; pull someone over and you risk losing your LIFE. Much different than that of a teacher losing their JOB. There really isn't much risk of death as a teacher (I know there are select circumstances). 

MOST teachers unions (if they exist) are through government means. In California, one of the LARGEST campaign donators is the CA Teachers Union; they donated over $2 MILLION to Newsom during his recall to keep him in office. He gave them a year of paid vacation as a result.  Not sure how it is in other states but Teachers unions have steadily amped up their political involvement: From 2004 to 2016, their donations grew from $4.3 million to more than $32 million -- an all-time high.

Dems own the teachers unions but they hate cops. If you don't think they are treated differently, I believe you're wrong. 

This is interesting: https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/national-education-assn/totals?id=d000000064

In 2022 over 99% of NEA donations went to Democratic politicians. Less than 1% went to Republicans. Dems like to vote to keep criminals out of prisons, but want to defund cops. The more money that's donated to them and their party... well....

 

[Reality 3,093]

1 hour ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Yea. Very surprising. Almost unbelievable. 

Correct.

[TimHauck 2,606]

3 hours ago, Strike said:

You got some links to some polls or articles about all these upset "public" people? 

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:

 

 

[Strike 5,185]

6 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

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:

 

 

That's interesting.  However, the reason I asked is that Hawkeye said she didn't campaign on this issue and people wouldn't have voted for her if she did.  But your link says she did campaign on this issue.  In fact, it looks like she's been trying to get some form of this passed for years.  So it looks like people voted for her despite knowing this was one of her things.

[Hardcore troubadour 14,924]

31 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

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:

 

 

Oh, so instead of addressing any fraud, just make kids go to shitt schools. Got it. 

[Hawkeye21 2,381]

14 hours ago, Strike said:

You got some links to some polls or articles about all these upset "public" people? 

Just my observations from seeing people's responses on social media and to the news articles.  It may not be as bad as I think it is but I don't recall seeing republicans voicing their displeasure over other issues like this.  I think it makes sense though, most Iowans feel similar about our education.  We have a lot of rural area, why would we want to hurt our public schools?

[TimHauck 2,606]

11 hours ago, Strike said:

That's interesting.  However, the reason I asked is that Hawkeye said she didn't campaign on this issue and people wouldn't have voted for her if she did.  But your link says she did campaign on this issue.  In fact, it looks like she's been trying to get some form of this passed for years.  So it looks like people voted for her despite knowing this was one of her things.

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.

[Hawkeye21 2,381]

14 hours ago, Strike said:

You got some links to some polls or articles about all these upset "public" people? 

https://www.bleedingheartland.com/2023/01/24/the-twelve-iowa-republicans-who-voted-against-school-vouchers/

https://www.legis.iowa.gov/committees/meetingPublicComment?meetingID=35782&action=viewCommitteePublicComments

The majority of complaints are not from republicans but there are more than usual.  I've seen more republican against this than I've ever seen for anything else before.  I think the majority of farmers in our state are republican and those farmers live in rural areas where there are no private schools close to them.  This does not benefit most republicans in Iowa.

[Hawkeye21 2,381]

11 hours ago, Strike said:

That's interesting.  However, the reason I asked is that Hawkeye said she didn't campaign on this issue and people wouldn't have voted for her if she did.  But your link says she did campaign on this issue.  In fact, it looks like she's been trying to get some form of this passed for years.  So it looks like people voted for her despite knowing this was one of her things.

I must have remembered it wrong then.  I thought I read some complaints with republicans saying they didn't vote for this.  Apparently they did and now they have to deal with the results.

[TimHauck 2,606]

13 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

https://www.bleedingheartland.com/2023/01/24/the-twelve-iowa-republicans-who-voted-against-school-vouchers/

https://www.legis.iowa.gov/committees/meetingPublicComment?meetingID=35782&action=viewCommitteePublicComments

The majority of complaints are not from republicans but there are more than usual.  I've seen more republican against this than I've ever seen for anything else before.  I think the majority of farmers in our state are republican and those farmers live in rural areas where there are no private schools close to them.  This does not benefit most republicans in Iowa.

 

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.

[Hawkeye21 2,381]

Just now, TimHauck said:

 

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, they just aren't really "helped").

I don't agree with the part about the private schools being able to reject students for any reason reason though.   That seems like just asking for preferential treatment for the higher income folks.

From what I've read, there isn't any oversight of what those private schools do with that money either.

[TBayXXXVII 2,482]

14 hours ago, TheNewGirl said:

So, the difference between this is that cops aren't really liked much by Dems. ACAB right?  They think they are racist, abusive animals that see a person of color and immediately think guilty. They don't consider that cops are literally on the line every day with their lives; pull someone over and you risk losing your LIFE. Much different than that of a teacher losing their JOB. There really isn't much risk of death as a teacher (I know there are select circumstances). 

MOST teachers unions (if they exist) are through government means. In California, one of the LARGEST campaign donators is the CA Teachers Union; they donated over $2 MILLION to Newsom during his recall to keep him in office. He gave them a year of paid vacation as a result.  Not sure how it is in other states but Teachers unions have steadily amped up their political involvement: From 2004 to 2016, their donations grew from $4.3 million to more than $32 million -- an all-time high.

Dems own the teachers unions but they hate cops. If you don't think they are treated differently, I believe you're wrong. 

This is interesting: https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/national-education-assn/totals?id=d000000064

In 2022 over 99% of NEA donations went to Democratic politicians. Less than 1% went to Republicans. Dems like to vote to keep criminals out of prisons, but want to defund cops. The more money that's donated to them and their party... well....

 

Exactly.  It's a double standard and hypocritical and the people like Tim don't care.  Well, that's not true.  They do care and embrace it... and demonize you for not agreeing.

[Sean Mooney 1,937]

The right has done to teachers what the left has done to cops.

It's no surprise that both professions are seeing less people looking to go into those professions. I'm sure people are lining up to be cops so they can be called racists and all that because of a few bad apples and I'm sure lots of teachers are lining up to be teachers when you get called "groomers" and "pedophiles" and all that because of a few idiots.

Add in the additional variables of body cams for cops and standardized testing for teachers leading to both being overseen in stupid ways and people crying about their retirements and pensions and it just feels like an onslaught.

Problem is we allow the extreme idiots on both sides to run discourse in this country. 

[Hardcore troubadour 14,924]

Hawkeye lost this thread. With an assist from Tim Hack. 

[RLLD 4,143]

1 hour ago, TimHauck said:

 

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 kids that do not misbehave

 

I fixed that for you, though both essentially are saying the same thing.....

[Strike 5,185]

1 hour ago, TimHauck said:

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.

ROFLMAO.   As you can see from Hawkeye's response, he doesn't dispute my interpretation of his stance on this.  Yet you felt compelled to speak for him and dispute it.   The FACT that you're wrong will probably not faze you though. Did you miss this sentence, from the SAME post you're trying to quote:

Quote

From what I can remember, the general public in Iowa were upset with the voucher program because Reynolds did not run on that policy.  A lot of people would not have voted for her if they knew that was what she was going to do. 

Is it still your assertion that he didn't say she didn't campaign on that issue, or are you going to admit you're wrong?  AGAIN!!!!

[TBayXXXVII 2,482]

@Strike, @Hardcore troubadour, @Hawkeye21, @TimHauck

So, a survey of 805 people... let's assume 50/50 representation with respect to Democrats and Republicans, yielded 62% Dems and 51% Reps not liking the new bill.  Basically saying 250 Democrats and 205 Republicans (of the 805), are not happy.  The authors of that article, felt that those numbers were enough to say that the majority of the people don't like voucher program.  YET, there's this other article that shows that over 15,500 people are signing up for the vouchers (already 1500 more than projected), and at the time more are expected.  Now, I don't know the final number, but I didn't go to school in Baltimore, so I know that 15,500 is substantially more than 205 and 250 (or 455 out of 805).

How many hypocrites do you think there are who think this bill is bad but still took advantage of it?  

I'm not saying the bill is a work of art, as I said in my initial response, I'm not a fan of tax payer money funding private education.  Also as I said, I'm not surprised this popped up, nor am I not surprised that over 15k people are looking to take advantage of this bill.  Many people in this country are not happy with the direction that public schools are taking and I .  Like every other politician, Reynolds clearly didn't see the obvious coming.  The obvious being that the private schools are going to raise their prices for... obvious reasons, those being supply and demand as well as the need to increase their budget due to an increase of students requiring more teachers and/or facilities.

[Strike 5,185]

1 minute ago, TBayXXXVII said:

@Strike, @Hardcore troubadour, @Hawkeye21, @TimHauck

So, a survey of 805 people... let's assume 50/50 representation with respect to Democrats and Republicans, yielded 62% Dems and 51% Reps not liking the new bill.  Basically saying 250 Democrats and 205 Republicans (of the 805), are not happy.  The authors of that article, felt that those numbers were enough to say that the majority of the people don't like voucher program.  YET, there's this other article that shows that over 15,500 people are signing up for the vouchers (already 1500 more than projected), and at the time more are expected.  Now, I don't know the final number, but I didn't go to school in Baltimore, so I know that 15,500 is substantially more than 205 and 250 (or 455 out of 805).

How many hypocrites do you think there are who think this bill is bad but still took advantage of it?  

I'm not saying the bill is a work of art, as I said in my initial response, I'm not a fan of tax payer money funding private education.  Also as I said, I'm not surprised this popped up nor am I not surprised that over 15k people are looking to take advantage of this bill.  Many people in this country are not happy with the direction that public schools are taking and I .  Like every other politician, Reynolds clearly didn't see the obvious coming.  The obvious being that the private schools are going to raise their prices for... obvious reasons, those being supply and demand as well as the need to increase their budget due to an increase of students requiring more teachers and/or facilities.

This is the bigger question you should ask of yourself.  Public schools are funded through taxes.  And as a parent, your biggest job is properly preparing your children to live in this world.  Education is one of the biggest pieces of that.  When the public schools aren't doing their job to your satisfaction you may feel forced to send your kids to private school.  So, in that case you're being forced to fund the public schools through your taxes AND on top of that pay for the private school.  I literally went through this myself back in the late 70's/early 80's, when the Los Angeles Unified school district decided to desegregate schools by sending people from the suburbs to inner city crap schools and send the black kids from those schools out to our suburb schools.  Besides having to take an hour (or longer) bus ride each way, the schools in the inner city were crap.  Fortunately for me, my parents could afford to send me to a private school and that's what happened until the LAUSD pulled their head out of their A$$.  But a lot of parents don't have that option.  But they should.  And this is one way to help them.  If the public schools were as good as the private ones most parents would be find sending their kids to them.  Let them compete with the private schools.

[TimHauck 2,606]

25 minutes ago, RLLD said:

 

I fixed that for you, though both essentially are saying the same thing.....

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

[TimHauck 2,606]

23 minutes ago, Strike said:

ROFLMAO.   As you can see from Hawkeye's response, he doesn't dispute my interpretation of his stance on this.  Yet you felt compelled to speak for him and dispute it.   The FACT that you're wrong will probably not faze you though. Did you miss this sentence, from the SAME post you're trying to quote:

Is it still your assertion that he didn't say she didn't campaign on that issue, or are you going to admit you're wrong?  AGAIN!!!!

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.

[Strike 5,185]

3 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

I honestly didn't see that post of his, you got me.

 

Dude, it's not about "getting" you.  It's about having an intelligent discussion and NOT wasting time having to correct you so you don't continue posting from an incorrect position of understanding.   If you're not sure what SOMEONE ELSE said, don't speak for them so *I* don't have to waste my time finding the post to prove you wrong so you don't continue down an incorrect tangent.

[RLLD 4,143]

7 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

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

Precisely. 

[TimHauck 2,606]

Just now, RLLD said:

Precisely. 

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

[TimHauck 2,606]

4 minutes ago, Strike said:

Dude, it's not about "getting" you.  It's about having an intelligent discussion and NOT wasting time having to correct you so you don't continue posting from an incorrect position of understanding.   If you're not sure what SOMEONE ELSE said, don't speak for them so *I* don't have to waste my time finding the post to prove you wrong so you don't continue down an incorrect tangent.

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.

[TheNewGirl 1,344]

So do democratic (or republican) politicians send their kids to public school? 

No. 

That should tell you enough, really. 

[TimHauck 2,606]

30 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

@Strike, @Hardcore troubadour, @Hawkeye21, @TimHauck

So, a survey of 805 people... let's assume 50/50 representation with respect to Democrats and Republicans, yielded 62% Dems and 51% Reps not liking the new bill.  Basically saying 250 Democrats and 205 Republicans (of the 805), are not happy.  The authors of that article, felt that those numbers were enough to say that the majority of the people don't like voucher program.  YET, there's this other article that shows that over 15,500 people are signing up for the vouchers (already 1500 more than projectd), and at the time more are expected.  Now, I don't know the final number, but I didn't go to school in Baltimore, so I know that 15,500 is substantially more than 205 and 250 (or 455 out of 805).

How many hypocrites do you think there are who think this bill is bad but still took advantage of it?  

I'm not saying the bill is a work of art, as I said in my initial response, I'm not a fan of tax payer money funding private education.  Also as I said, I'm not surprised this popped up, nor am I not surprised that over 15k people are looking to take advantage of this bill.  Many people in this country are not happy with the direction that public schools are taking and I .  Like every other politician, Reynolds clearly didn't see the obvious coming.  The obvious being that the private schools are going to raise their prices for... obvious reasons, those being supply and demand as well as the need to increase their budget due to an increase of students requiring more teachers and/or facilities.

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. 

[TBayXXXVII 2,482]

4 minutes ago, Strike said:

This is the bigger question you should ask of yourself.  Public schools are funded through taxes.  And as a parent, your biggest job is properly preparing your children to live in this world.  Education is one of the biggest pieces of that.  When the public schools aren't doing their job to your satisfaction you may feel forced to send your kids to private school.  So, in that case you're being forced to fund the public schools through your taxes AND on top of that pay for the private school.  I literally went through this myself back in the late 70's/early 80's, when the Los Angeles Unified school district decided to desegregate schools by sending people from the suburbs to inner city crap schools and send the black kids from those schools out to our suburb schools.  Besides having to take an hour (or longer) bus ride each way, the schools in the inner city were crap.  Fortunately for me, my parents could afford to send me to a private school and that's what happened until the LAUSD pulled their head out of their A$$.  But a lot of parents don't have that option.  But they should.  And this is one way to help them.  If the public schools were as good as the private ones most parents would be find sending their kids to them.  Let them compete with the private schools.

Here in NJ, what I'm starting to see is County-wide Tech Schools as alternatives to the local schools for high school.  The County-wide Tech schools are public schools, not private.  The Tech schools are basically career geared education instead of standard, where you can actually earn college credits while in high school and practically leave high school with an Associates degree.  Funny thing is that liberals down here pushed for it... Menedez and Booker were big proponents.  Why is that funny?  Because the 3 biggest towns in my county (Cumberland), are Vineland, Bridgeton, and Millville.  They make up over 75% of the county population.  County-wide, the racial demographic is 40%+/- white, 40%+/- Hispanic 18%+/- black, and 2%+/- other.  You know what the racial demographic makeup is of those 3 local high schools?

• Vineland: 62% Hispanic, 17% black, 17% white
• Bridgeton: 77% Hispanic, 19% black, 2% white
• Millville: 25% Hispanic, 32% black, 39% white
  • To note, when you see 39% white and see that on average it's close to the county-wide number, Millville is close to the national average when it comes to the white population.  About 62% of the population for the city of Millville is white.

What's happening is that the kids who are able to test into the Tech schools are leaving the local high school behind.  The liberals down here saw that with school choice, a lot of white people were leaving their district to go to other school districts, so they thought, "hey, let's try and keep them here".  All they did was remove more white people from the local public school system.  When you click on those links, plus this one for CC Tech (the Cumberland County Tech school), note the rankings of the two schools.  Nice how CCTech is top 20%, Millville is top 30%, and the other two are bottom 50%.  To say the two are bottom 50% is probably being kind too.

This isn't an "income" thing because all of these schools are public schools, but it points directly to what @RLLD noted in his altered post, from @TimHauck.  It's a perfect example of what happens when you put education as a priority.

[Hawkeye21 2,381]

15 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

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.

 

[TBayXXXVII 2,482]

5 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

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. 

As far as your 2nd point, I did think of that, but what you need to consider is how many of that 482k are perfectly happy with their school system?  I found no links to show what districts kids are leaving.  My guess is that because Iowa is more conservative than liberal, the bulk of the schools that are mostly conservative don't have many kids leaving.  It's the schools that are more "Progressive" (LOL), that kids are leaving.  Again, that's a guess though.  I didn't see any links that agree or disagree with that guess.  I say that because of what I'm seeing here where I live (see my prior post above).

[TimHauck 2,606]

11 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Here in NJ, what I'm starting to see is County-wide Tech Schools as alternatives to the local schools for high school.  The County-wide Tech schools are public schools, not private.  The Tech schools are basically career geared education instead of standard, where you can actually earn college credits while in high school and practically leave high school with an Associates degree.  Funny thing is that liberals down here pushed for it... Menedez and Booker were big proponents.  Why is that funny?  Because the 3 biggest towns in my county (Cumberland), are Vineland, Bridgeton, and Millville.  They make up over 75% of the county population.  County-wide, the racial demographic is 40%+/- white, 40%+/- Hispanic 18%+/- black, and 2%+/- other.  You know what the racial demographic makeup is of those 3 local high schools?

• Vineland: 62% Hispanic, 17% black, 17% white
• Bridgeton: 77% Hispanic, 19% black, 2% white
• Millville: 25% Hispanic, 32% black, 39% white
  • To note, when you see 39% white and see that on average it's close to the county-wide number, Millville is close to the national average when it comes to the white population.  About 62% of the population for the city of Millville is white.

What's happening is that the kids who are able to test into the Tech schools are leaving the local high school behind.  The liberals down here saw that with school choice, a lot of white people were leaving their district to go to other school districts, so they thought, "hey, let's try and keep them here".  All they did was remove more white people from the local public school system.  When you click on those links, plus this one for CC Tech (the Cumberland County Tech school), note the rankings of the two schools.  Nice how CCTech is top 20%, Millville is top 30%, and the other two are bottom 50%.  To say the two are bottom 50% is probably being kind too.

This isn't an "income" thing because all of these schools are public schools, but it points directly to what @RLLD noted in his altered post, from @TimHauck.  It's a perfect example of what happens when you put education as a priority.

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.   

[Hawkeye21 2,381]

I worry about kids with special needs.  Private schools usually don't offer services for students with special needs.  Every time I read into the voucher program I see more negatives than positives.

[TBayXXXVII 2,482]

25 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

I'm not sure what this post has to do with what @RLLD altered my post to.

He said it's the ones that stay out of trouble... which is what I'm seeing here.

[Hardcore troubadour 14,924]

3 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

I worry about kids with special needs.  Private schools usually don't offer services for students with special needs.  Every time I read into the voucher program I see more negatives than positives.

So they go to the public school.  Like they do now. Why is that a concern? 

[Strike 5,185]

3 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

I worry about kids with special needs.  Private schools usually don't offer services for students with special needs.  Every time I read into the voucher program I see more negatives than positives.

Why would a parent put their kid in a school that can't meet the kids needs?  Seems like you're just looking for reasons to complain.

[The Real timschochet 6,407]

3 hours ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Exactly.  It's a double standard and hypocritical and the people like Tim don't care.  Well, that's not true.  They do care and embrace it... and demonize you for not agreeing.

OK please allow me to correct this. 
 

1. I don’t love teachers unions. In particular I don’t like tenure. I’ve been married to an elementary school teacher for over 30 years and my oldest daughter is about to become one as well. Now I’ll admit I share the liberal views of most teachers about gays and trans, and I believe in teaching elements of critical race theory. But I certainly don’t love teachers unions. Far from it. 
 

2. I don’t hate cops. The vast, VAST majority of police officers are good people, well meaning and heroes and deserve thanks for protecting us. I do not like what I firmly believe is institutional racism against people of color, and I would like to see more reform to address this. But that in no way means I hate cops. 

3. I don’t demonize people who disagree with me. I demonize extremists and bigots. Unfortunately there are more than a few of these in this forum (more extremists than bigots though there are some of each), and when I read their posts I often call them out. They deserve to be demonized. But people who disagree with me don’t. 
 

4. Whenever Winston Churchill was called a hypocrite (it happened quite often) he responded by saying that consistency is for small minds. I tend to agree with this.