Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: A closer look at the ADA lawsuit against the White Sox
Next Post: Caption contest!
Posted in:
* WGN…
Theauntae Jones says he hopes to head to college next year in Ohio but the road there hasn’t been easy.
“My mom was struggling really hard and this helped her a lot,” the Leo Catholic high schooler said of the ‘Invest in Kids’ program. “Mom came into my room and she was really happy (and) said, ‘We got the scholarship.’ It gave her $8,000.”
The Illinois Invest in Kids Scholarship Program allows taxpayers a 75% credit for every dollar donated towards the funding of scholarships that help send students from low-income families to private schools. The program is due to sunset by the end of the year, however, and will go away entirely by January 2025 unless lawmakers step in to save it.
More than 9,000 kids are on scholarship, with about 26,000 more on the waiting list. It’s why hundreds, including Rev. Michael Pfleger, gathered at St. Sabina on Wednesday, demanding action from officials in Springfield.
“We can’t keep talking about children reaching their purpose and then block them from the education they deserve,” Pfleger said. “I fight for this school cause I want the best thing for the kids in this neighborhood and the opportunity for them to achieve their goals and dreams.”
* NBC 5…
Stacy Davis gates is certainly not the only member of the CTU who sends her child to a private school. In fact, NBC 5 has learned a key member of the Illinois Education Association also sends his children to Catholic schools. So how might these decisions change the union’s fight right now to end those tax credit programs?
The pressure is on from these students and parents and educators for why they believe the Illinois General Assembly should continue to fund the Illinois Invest in Kids program. […]
NBC 5 has also learned IEA Government Relations Director Sean Denny, seen here in an IEA Facebook posting, sends his children to a Catholic school in Springfield. Both unions strongly oppose the tax credits basis. This IEA video calls the scholarships ‘a scheme.’ […]
This afternoon the IEA responded to our questions saying it will continue to fight against what it calls a voucher program until it ends because public dollars belong in public schools, according to the IEA.
Three of Jasmine Bland’s five children have been able to attend St. Patrick’s Catholic School, and she hopes state lawmakers continue to help low-income families like hers afford high-quality educational options.
“The culture there is more like family, which I prefer,” said Bland, a single parent who lives with her children on Springfield’s east side, works a minimum-wage job and recently began a second job waiting tables.
Bland, 41, said she wants to make sure her children have access to Catholic schools even though she and her kids aren’t Catholic because she has seen her children face more distractions in public schools.
Officials from St. Patrick’s – a prekindergarten through fifth-grade school and a stable presence in its east side Springfield neighborhood since 1910 – hope the Illinois General Assembly listens to Bland and other parents like her.
Northfield Township Republicans will host a discussion on education from 6 to 8:30 p.m. Wednesday, Sept. 13 on Invest In Kids, an Illinois State Board of Education school voucher program.
The scheduled program speakers are Dan Vosnos, executive director of One Chance Illinois, and Nathan Hoffman, director of state policy and legislation for ExcelinEd.
A press release on the event, to be held at the Glenview Public Library, said the two speakers would also be, “shedding light on the educational reform movement that has been gaining momentum around the country.”
* Center Square…
Anthony Holter of scholarship granting organization Empower Illinois said the program being shut down would create problems for parents and students alike.
“So many of these families do not have the financial resources to continue without these scholarships and would be forced to face this really impossible choice,” Holter said. “They would have to try and find a way to keep their child there, knowing very well that they can not afford it and that it is best for them.”
Lawmakers return to session on Oct. 24 and could discuss a possible extension of the act.
* Sun-Times…
Theantae Jones, a senior at Leo Catholic High School, said the scholarship gave him the opportunity to attend a better school than the public school near him. Jones said he commutes from the West Side to the South Side during the week.
“Every morning I start my day at 5 a.m., and I leave the house at 6 a.m. for an hour and half commute,” Jones said. “I do my homework on the bus, miss out on sleep. I make the sacrifices to attend Leo [High School] because it’s the best place for me.” […]
“I’m willing to work with the program if it gets extended or to figure out how we would wind down the program if it doesn’t get extended,” Pritzker told reporters in July.
Pritzker’s noncommittal statement means he won’t be actively working to kill or support the program. In the past, it had been used as leverage during bill negotiations.
But teachers unions this year requested that Illinois Senate President Don Harmon and Illinois House Speaker Emanuel “Chris” Welch carry the program in a standalone bill and not include it in a budget bill, making its passage even more difficult. That would have been a risky move, with primary elections approaching and lawmakers’ votes being picked apart, according to a Democratic lawmaker with direct knowledge of the bill.
There have been discussions about enacting a wind-down period so as not to negatively affect the children already enrolled in the program, the lawmaker said.
It’s definitely an uphill legislative climb, and attacking Democrats’ friends and allies in the teachers’ unions likely won’t help much.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Sep 14, 23 @ 1:39 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: A closer look at the ADA lawsuit against the White Sox
Next Post: Caption contest!
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
The State is not mandating that people can no longer donate to private schools to provide scholarships when the Invest in Kids Act ends. If donors are funding these scholarships for all the right reasons, parents shouldn’t be concerned that scholarships will dry up. And I’d hope that the private schools are continuing their fundraising to secure those scholarships.
The State has been pumping historic levels of money to our public schools to finally right the ship, but we’re still behind. Per IDOR, the Invest in Kids Act allows for up to $75 million in tax credits per year. That money should be going to public schools via EBF to hire more teachers, support staff, and invest in our schools so every student prospers. $75 mil ain’t chump change.
Comment by Panther Pride Thursday, Sep 14, 23 @ 1:52 pm
===…attacking Democrats’ friends and allies in the teachers’ unions likely won’t help much.===
This is … everything. It’s everything.
I feel the reason they are attacking Dems and “owning the Libs in hypocrisy” is the truths of this plan;
No one person is stopping anyone from merely donating monies to help the kids.
There’s no altruism except to the tax break allowing these monies to exist.
The schools need these monies by having these students be worth more financially, with the same education delivered, and it’s not a reduced amount received or a payment plan initiated.
They want “what about the children” as the donors may walk without the tax breaks and these schools lose windfall revenues for full price educations.
So… attack those CTU Libs, those Dems, that hypocrisy… that’ll get that money back… back for the schools and tax breaks
There’s no leverage with shame or anger here when it’s base/core fundamental is a tax break
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Sep 14, 23 @ 1:54 pm
“knowing very well that they can not afford it”
Catholic churches and schools have done a great job convincing their members there is a direct link between the IKA and their ability to get scholarships.
Nothing, absolutely nothing, is stopping the scholarships from still existing after IKA sunsets.
The church much prefers parents to look to and blame the state for the problems and concerns in their own churches.
It’s just so heartbreaking that now there won’t be any motivation at all to setup ponzi schemes to fund the church, and get tax credits at the same time.
Joliet Catholic Academy in the Joliet Diocese has to pay back 100k by November, in a settlement with the SEC.
“Joliet Catholic High School received $151,840.86″
https://chronicleillinois.com/news/minooka-mans-ponzi-scheme-ensnares-school-charities/
Comment by TheInvisibleMan Thursday, Sep 14, 23 @ 1:59 pm
The catholic church would have much more money in their coffers had they not had to pay for innumerable lawsuits resulting from sexual abuse. For starters.
Second, anyone who takes public money is a defacto public school and should have to follow the same rules and standards.
Comment by JS Mill Thursday, Sep 14, 23 @ 2:03 pm
If there was ANY honesty by the proponents at this point, the people they should be shaming, in a religious underpinning, are those only donating for tax credits and not donating again without it.
But, since we aren’t seeing any of that, only this continued push because of the tax credit… it’s more about money than it could ever be about the kids or altruism… or religion.
Can I get an Amen…
:)
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Sep 14, 23 @ 2:11 pm
Amen
Comment by Ugh Thursday, Sep 14, 23 @ 2:23 pm
(“Acknowledged pointing” to - Ugh -)
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Sep 14, 23 @ 2:29 pm
Thank goodness government breadlines and soup kitchens never formed a powerful union or SNAP (read vouchers) would never be allowed at private grocery stores.
Comment by What's the point? Thursday, Sep 14, 23 @ 2:31 pm
Agree with JS Mill’s comments regarding lawsuits against the Church arising from sexual abuse.
Many of the graduates of Catholic high schools could donate directly to their former school to provide funding for current students.
The alumni of Leo High School is quite a “Who’s Who” of Chicago’s corporate, legal, and philanthropic communities. Surely they can open their checkbooks to keep the doors open and welcoming to future Leo students.
Comment by Rudy’s teeth Thursday, Sep 14, 23 @ 2:31 pm
As far as I can see, donors can still contribute to these schools and it would be fully deductible on both their Federal and state returns if they itemize.
Comment by Excessively Rabid Thursday, Sep 14, 23 @ 2:39 pm
There was a big push of - at all places - Chuy Garcia’s townhall in Brookfield.
https://www.rblandmark.com/2023/09/05/school-tax-credit-complex-topic-at-rep-chuy-garcias-town-hall/
Comment by Suburban Mom Thursday, Sep 14, 23 @ 2:45 pm
- TheInvisibleMan - Thursday, Sep 14, 23 @ 1:59 pm:
I also wouldn’t be shocked if in general the school communities themselves are hostile to scholarship recipients. I attended a Catholic high school and kids who openly talked about attending on scholarships or their family needing a scholarship to attend were mocked by kids from wealthier families. You can chalk to up to high school jerks, but I never saw a teacher or administrator who witnessed it put a stop to that kind of talk or promote broader notions of inclusivity. I agree with you that “the Church” is always looking for someone else to blame for their own misconduct, mismanagement, or general lack of empathy and respect.
Comment by Google Is Your Friend Thursday, Sep 14, 23 @ 2:46 pm
The need for a “wind down period” is also infuriating. The sunset provision has been there all along and it’s already been extended once. I’d love to know what sort of planning was done by these schools in light of that. Did they enroll kids knowing there wouldn’t be enough scholarship moeny for them to finish their education at the school? Was the plan to use these kids as political pawns all along?
Comment by JJJJJJJJJJ Thursday, Sep 14, 23 @ 2:47 pm
Agree with the teacher union leaders and Father P. that the public schools are not good choices in many communities.
It is a small program that is giving some kids a chance at a better education.
I do agree we should have a solid program in place to insure that we have a way to compare test scores. Perhaps these parents are wrong. Why not compare educational opportunities?
Let’s help these kids out by continuing a program that seems to be working for some families.
Comment by Back to the Future Thursday, Sep 14, 23 @ 2:49 pm
===that seems to be working===
What is that measure?
Are the student bodies comparable to public school options?
Why are these proponents not leading with data?
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Sep 14, 23 @ 2:52 pm
===government breadlines and soup kitchens never formed a powerful union===
You really need to work harder on your analogies.
And, by the way, the farmers were some of the earliest proponents of food stamps.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Sep 14, 23 @ 2:53 pm
These advocacy orgs are funded by private schools using the money they make from Invest in Kids. The program basically created a cottage industry of nonprofits whose only purpose is to use government money to advocate for more government money. This public relations blitz is itself part of the problem and a reason the program should end.
Comment by vern Thursday, Sep 14, 23 @ 3:00 pm
The measure is that the parents and children made a decision on what they know about their local school choices.
Maybe it is the miserable test scores that are showing up or violence in some schools.
I am thinking the families know what is the better choice for their kids and that includes the union families.
This program allows some children who may come from families that have economic challenges to have a shot at a better future.
Comment by Back to the Future Thursday, Sep 14, 23 @ 3:04 pm
===decision===
Then that decision is on them. There are alumni associations for the schools, the school should have the alumni help the students.
===Maybe it is the miserable test scores that are showing up or violence in some schools.===
Maybe the miserable test scores are because there’s no weeding out of folks who can lower overall scores.
The violence angle, these private schools can also invest in the students with alums donating directly for safety, no need for tax breaks for safety.
===I am thinking the families know what is the better choice for their kids and that includes the union families.===
Who said they can’t go where? There doesn’t need to be any program for a choice of a family.
===This program allows some children who may come from families that have economic challenges to have a shot at a better future.===
You’ve yet to show any factual data to any of this, or any headier outside “choice” or “opportunity” which doesn’t need any tax break to set up a fund to help students if these donors care about students.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Sep 14, 23 @ 3:09 pm
Indiana used to track the test scores for kids who received state money. After they had enough data to show those kids were falling behind their peers including similar students in the schools they left , the required data collection stopped if course and other programs implemented elsewhere never require it. I think that there are some mathematicians at the U of I who analyzed students and came up with that kids do similar whether in private or public on test scores based on the income levels of the parents and when that improved kids scores would usually also go up.
Comment by DTownResident Thursday, Sep 14, 23 @ 3:11 pm
vern is spot on, as far as the folks doing the advocating pocketing $ from the program. Wasn’t Mike McClain one of the founding organizers of Empower Illinois, the biggest of that bunch? Probably he did it out of the goodness of his heart.
Comment by notsosure Thursday, Sep 14, 23 @ 3:27 pm
It is a tax incentive program to raise money for educational options for lower income families.
We have all kinds of tax incentive programs. This one seems to work for poorer families.
Father Michael points out that we have a 26,000 kid waiting line.
I suppose some parents would keep their kid in a miserable performing private school to allow someone else to have a tax break, but I doubt it. The proof is in the parents keeping their kids in schools that are in the program.
The parents can always move back to a public school if they thought that was a better place for their children.
Comment by Back to the Future Thursday, Sep 14, 23 @ 3:29 pm
===This one seems to work for poorer families.===
That is an opinion, not a fact, there’s no necessity for a tax incentive, given each of those schools have fundraising mechanisms. The tax incentive is for the donor abd the school… having zero to do with any student.
===I suppose some parents would keep their kid in a miserable performing private school to allow someone else to have a tax break, but I doubt it.===
You’ve never met a family with multi-generational alums that feel a seat in that school is an entitlement. It’s rarely a “one off”, especially with Catholic families.
===The proof is in the parents keeping their kids in schools that are in the program.===
The proof would actually be the students being awarded scholarships by the fundraising of altruistic alums not needing tax breaks.
===The parents can always move back to a public school if they thought that was a better place for their children.===
Again, no one is denying any choice one makes or doesn’t make. That’s not a point of contention or value to the argument
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Sep 14, 23 @ 3:34 pm
“If there was any honesty…” like Stacy Davis Gates saying there aren’t enough good schools for her child on the south side so she chose a Catholic School instead, the same private schools she calls “segregation academies” and belittles the supporters of private schools as “racists and fascists.” Why? Because she can afford it, yet won’t allow poor black and brown families the same opportunities. Poor folks get stuck in the same failing schools Ms. Davis Gates rejected. Honesty? More like Hypocrisy.
Comment by Southsider Thursday, Sep 14, 23 @ 3:41 pm
For decades, taxpayers in Germany have had the right to direct their tax money to the school system of their choice. It is really complicated: the taxpayer checks a box on his or her tax return indicating which school system should receive the education system should receive the tax money.
BTW at Leo High School, the alumni have opened their checkbooks to help a new generation of students attend their alma mater. Leo is now predominantly African American while the alums are old white guys.
I mailed a donation today.
Comment by Gravitas Thursday, Sep 14, 23 @ 3:44 pm
=== lower income children ===
=== poorer children ===
Read the eligibility income thresholds. Invest in Kids is open to families living well into the middle class. It is not restricted to poor kids. Suggesting so is a false.
This is not a program for poor kids.
Comment by H-W Thursday, Sep 14, 23 @ 3:50 pm
If a student needs services or has an IEP, Catholic schools do not have the staff to meet the needs of the student. The Catholic schools are not all-inclusive.
If they accept money from the state, they must be open to all students and meet their needs accordingly.
Comment by Rudy’s teeth Thursday, Sep 14, 23 @ 3:51 pm
=== Maybe the miserable test scores are because there’s no weeding out of folks who can lower overall scores ===
That is exactly the whole point Willy. I am a firm believer that the success of a student is related to the other students that they go to school with. Many people who send their kid to a private school do so because the environment (including the other students) is more conducive to success than the public option. When your child is surrounded by other students that are learning at a higher level, it is more likely that your child will learn more. It’s the whole reason why many working class families send their kids to private school.
That doesn’t mean the program should continue or not continue — it simply means that many parents want to put their kids in schools that are more conducive to success. It’s the whole reason why many families send their kids to private school.
I think understanding that gives a better understanding why this program is attractive to some families. Whether its a good or bad use of public funds - I am not opining on that, and if I did it wouldn’t change anyone’s mind.
Comment by Hannibal Lecter Thursday, Sep 14, 23 @ 3:58 pm
this is a welfare program for religious institutions and their status quo. look around. their churches are closing, merging. they can’t recruit priests and they don’t allow women to do those jobs. their schools are closing. why? because actually public schools are getting better. so they need money to prop these schools up. which props up their churches. and makes people believe they have to go through that venue to get more. I don’t want my tax dollars supporting their religion including because it discriminates against women.
Comment by Amalia Thursday, Sep 14, 23 @ 4:04 pm
===This is not a program for poor kids.===
Ball game.
This is a tax break for wealthy folks to prop up private schools.
The kids are the conduit to do so.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Sep 14, 23 @ 4:05 pm
“Wealthy Folks”
Wealthy folks can send their kids to whatever school they want. Tax break or no tax break. Like a lot if other things in society its the middle class being hurt. They can send kids to inadequate public schools but can’t quite afford private schools. Let them keep the money and choose.
Comment by Pete Mitchell Thursday, Sep 14, 23 @ 4:25 pm
Wealthy folks can send their kids to whatever school they want. Tax break or no tax break. Like a lot if other things in society its the middle class being hurt. They can send kids to inadequate public schools but can’t quite afford private schools. Let them keep the money and choose.
Comment by Pete Mitchell Thursday, Sep 14, 23 @ 4:26 pm
===That is exactly the whole point===
It’s actually not close to the point of the actual discussion.
The point is the tax break to help schools by seemingly helping students, but to donate without the tax incentive to actual students isn’t the want… as the propaganda for proponents try to make it about kids that are poor, but being poor isn’t part of the criteria at all.
Here’s missing the whole point;
===I think understanding that gives a better understanding why this program is attractive to some families.===
The program is about attracting wealthy folks cash for schools, not families looking for opportunities.
This is window dressing to mask the reality.
===It’s the whole reason why many working class families send their kids to private school.===
Again, not the discussion being had here.
With respect, and friend, I do understand and sympathize with the why, that not the argument. Your argument is understood, but not the argument to the why or what this program is.
Be well.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Sep 14, 23 @ 4:33 pm
=== their schools are closing. why? because actually public schools are getting better. ===
I would say its because private schools have become much more expensive.
$3,600 a year back when I was a freshman in HS. Tuition at the same school is now between $12k and $13k. Not a lot of working class people can afford that kind of tuition, especially if they have multiple kids.
Comment by Hannibal Lecter Thursday, Sep 14, 23 @ 4:38 pm
===I would say its because private schools have become much more expensive.
$3,600 a year back when I was a freshman in HS. Tuition at the same school is now between $12k and $13k. Not a lot of working class people can afford that kind of tuition, especially if they have multiple kids.===
(Enter “Invest in Kids”)
If one were to discuss this as the reason (help private schools exist) for the program and not the kids, do you think there would be even less legislative support?
You’re on it with that truth above
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Sep 14, 23 @ 4:42 pm
@Hannibal Lecter- your statement in the primary influence on student success is not sustained by any research. Parental support and poverty are the top reasons.
Back to the future misses a key point. Parents of all income ranges can move to find a better school. The lowers SES families tend to be the most mobile. Public dollars should not flow to religious institutions period. It is anti- American as communism.
Comment by JS Mill Thursday, Sep 14, 23 @ 6:15 pm
the idea behind funding public schools is for the public good. not because your kid goes to a public school. people who do not have children or who no longer have school children pay into the fund. for the public good. do you use your local library? no? should you get credit to buy books at a store? or your local parks. if you don’t use them should you get credit and use the money at a private health club? those who take money out of the fund with this kind of program are not contributing. but they benefit from a better society. they should pay in. end this program.
Comment by Amalia Thursday, Sep 14, 23 @ 7:18 pm
To add a comment to JS Mill’s remarks—-the educational level of parents has much to do with perseverance and support during school years.
The best way for anyone to avoid poverty is through literacy.
Comment by Rudy’s teeth Thursday, Sep 14, 23 @ 7:31 pm