Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: The CCS Opportunity In Illinois
Next Post: A super-cringey blast from the past
Posted in:
* We’ve discussed this topic before, but here’s my weekly syndicated newspaper column…
With his latest comments Thursday, Gov. J.B. Pritzker has taken almost every possible position imaginable on the Invest in Kids Act.
During his first run for governor, Pritzker agreed with the teachers’ unions and progressive activists by calling the program “a really bad idea,” and said he opposed keeping the law on the books.
The program provides $75 million in income tax credits for those who donate to organizations that then provide scholarship money for private and parochial school students. “What I oppose is taking money out of the public schools, and that’s what happened here,” he said, a promise Pritzker would have to break in 2020.
Once elected, Pritzker “agreed” to fund the program if the General Assembly did what state law required and put an additional $350 million into the “evidence-based” education funding program, which was gonna happen anyway.
In 2020, Pritzker ditched the annual $350 million evidence-based increase because of pandemic budgetary pressures, but the Invest in Kids Act was left intact. Campaign promise broken.
In 2021, Pritzker floated the idea of reducing the 75 percent income tax credit for donations to 40 percent. But he ultimately did not stop legislators from continuing it as-is.
In 2022, the governor signed a bill that tweaked the tax credit law to, among other things, make sure families who had kids receiving the scholarships were put first in line each year for new scholarships.
During the 2022 campaign, Pritzker told the Chicago Sun-Times he supported continuing the program: “With assurance from the advocates for Invest in Kids that they will support increased public school funding, my budgets have ultimately included the relatively small Invest in Kids Scholarship Program.”
The tax credit is set to expire at the end of this calendar year. The General Assembly took no action to extend the sunset during the 2023 spring session. And the governor has taken three different public positions since early June.
Shortly after the legislature adjourned in May, Gov. Pritzker told reporters he’d like to see a change in the way the tax credits worked.
“I think we should have tax credits that support education,” Pritzker said, “But we also have the federal government willing to cover about 40 percent of the cost.” The state tax credit law as currently written doesn’t allow for federal tax deductions, so he wanted the law changed.
In July, Pritzker flipped from calling Invest in Kids a “relatively small” program during the 2022 campaign to saying, “People who say, ‘Well, actually it’s not costing taxpayers anything,’ actually, it’s costing taxpayers 75 percent of the total amount that gets raised. And so that’s something that I think some people who are budget conscious are paying attention to as well.” But, he said, “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.”
With the veto session fast approaching in late October and new draft legislation circulating about scaling back the program’s cost to $50 million from $75 million, adding an allowance for federal tax breaks and increasing the number of eligible kids if they live in neighborhoods with significant poverty, Pritzker was asked Thursday where he currently stood.
“I will support it if it comes to my desk to extend the program in whatever form,” the governor said. “I mean, I can’t imagine it would show up in some form, that, you know, that I would be unwilling to. But, again, the reality is that the legislature needs to go through this process, and I have said that from the very beginning.”
The leaders of the Illinois Federation of Teachers and the Illinois Education Association have mostly stayed quiet while Pritzker flipped all over the place. Not after that vow, though. The teachers’ union presidents issued a joint statement the following morning: “Governor Pritzker has chosen to side with anti-public education Republican governors in other states with his support of vouchers, going against the values of the Democratic Party, which clearly stands opposed to vouchers.”
Recent statewide polls conducted for proponents have shown strong support for the tax credit-based scholarships. But few people actually believe that the tax credit program will be approved during veto session. So, this Pritzker statement could be considered a relatively safe political punt to the General Assembly that was too late to change many minds.
More importantly, Democratic legislators now have a preview of what the unions will say about them if they do vote to keep the program alive.
By the way, that tweet we talked about last week from an IFT official claiming that Pritzker had aligned himself with “right-wing Republicans like Abbott and Desantis” has since been deleted.
* On a related note, from the Tribune’s coverage…
“Our public dollars should support public schools in Illinois,” said state Rep. Will Guzzardi, a Chicago Democrat who cited those factors as among the reasons he does not back an extension for the program. “Until our public schools are adequately funded across the state, we just don’t have the resources to be dedicating money to supporting private schools.”
Rep. Kelly Cassidy, a Chicago Democrat who’s the only openly gay member of the House, put it more bluntly in a news release Wednesday: “At its core, Invest in Kids exists to send state funds to schools that wouldn’t hire me as a lesbian, that teach that our family isn’t real and that I am an abomination. There’s not enough makeup to cover up that reality.” […]
Pritzker said Thursday that if lawmakers send him a bill, he’d agree to extend the program. But with his comments, Pritzker essentially absolved himself of responsibility if the program ends.
“The governor has already put the General Assembly on notice that ‘it’s up to you guys,’“ said state Rep. La Shawn Ford, a Chicago Democrat. “Man, that was something for the governor to do that to us.”
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Oct 23, 23 @ 9:24 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: The CCS Opportunity In Illinois
Next Post: A super-cringey blast from the past
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
JB washed his hands of the situation. He can say I’m for it but… it might not reach my desk. Oh well. Not a bad position to take if you want to run for president in the Democratic party. Especially, when Illinois is now a leftist state relative to others and you might want to appear more moderate.
Comment by Steve Monday, Oct 23, 23 @ 9:38 am
===By the way, that tweet we talked about last week from an IFT official claiming that Pritzker had aligned himself with “right-wing Republicans like Abbott and Desantis” has since been deleted.===
The political incompetence to go after Pritzker as they did with it needing to play out in the GA first is truly a head scratcher.
To this;
===“Our public dollars should support public schools in Illinois,” said state Rep. Will Guzzardi, a Chicago Democrat who cited those factors as among the reasons he does not back an extension for the program. “Until our public schools are adequately funded across the state, we just don’t have the resources to be dedicating money to supporting private schools.”===
It could be time to have a discussion to… a property tax swap that would allow property tax relief while increasing school funding in a new formula to help all school districts, big and small and discuss where a break versus new revenues could allow a big net win, allowing public schools to look to Springfield more and voters less.
===Rep. Kelly Cassidy, a Chicago Democrat who’s the only openly gay member of the House, put it more bluntly in a news release Wednesday: “At its core, Invest in Kids exists to send state funds to schools that wouldn’t hire me as a lesbian, that teach that our family isn’t real and that I am an abomination. There’s not enough makeup to cover up that reality.”===
Tough to think that schools that see people in a lens of an angry god (small G) that these same schools pretend they are Christians but focus on “teachings” of the Old Testament, the punishing god that later… well, the New Testament that apparently isn’t about hate at all.
So much surrounding Invest in Kids could be discussion points to reinvent, not tweak, funding to a better way forward.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Oct 23, 23 @ 9:40 am
===if you want to run for president===
Oh, stop.
It’s actually not a good take in a presidential primary.
Not everything is about your little pet issue.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Oct 23, 23 @ 9:42 am
=when Illinois is now a leftist state relative to others=
LOL. What the ultra right cannot understand is nuance. Illinois is one of the most politically diverse states in the country and our legislature reflects that. When your choices for governor are a maga extremist that cannot even pronounce the name of the state correctly and and JB Pritzker, there really isn’t a choice and Illinois keeps telling the gop that same thing, the gop just does not listen.
Comment by JS Mill Monday, Oct 23, 23 @ 9:44 am
All of this is just noise. Not going to affect the governor . Much to do about nothing .
Comment by Tinman Monday, Oct 23, 23 @ 9:44 am
Rep. Kelly Cassidy has clearly stated the elephant in the room.
The rhinoceros in the room, is the argument people will completely stop contributing to a scholarship fund, and harm kids, if they don’t get a personal tax credit.
The supporters have put forth the unspoken reality that the problem isn’t the law. The problem is the people contributing. In any other world, that would be an insult, but somehow it’s turned into a good thing in this situation.
Everything about this law is bad, even the attempts to support it.
Comment by TheInvisibleMan Monday, Oct 23, 23 @ 9:44 am
I am not impressed with the way we got here - calling upon the Legislature to pass tax laws. It has been an ugly path. But here we are.
It is the Legislature’s responsibility to pass laws, and if the Legislature will not publicly pass a new law to allow middle class families to attend private schools at a discount rate provided by tax payers who do not attend private schools, then the Legislature should have the courage to make a public statement (akin to Rep. Kelly) as to why they will not take up this piece of legislation.
It is actually quite easy to say “No, we will not take money away from essential services to help middle class parents avoid the public schools.”
Comment by H-W Monday, Oct 23, 23 @ 9:49 am
While one might argue the political wisdom of JB’s position, I’d prefer that my politicians clearly state their values and have the courage to stand up for them, even if they have to make compromises in order to govern. At this point, I’m not sure what JB’s values are, and that is unfortunate. Perhaps this is such an annoying little nothingburger of an issue for him that he doesn’t really care one way or the other, but I and many others do.
Comment by Jibba Monday, Oct 23, 23 @ 10:10 am
JB’s statement last Thursday was a smart move. Polling for Invest in Kids indicates strong support. The impacts research poll found huge Black/Latino voter support. His comments blunt the cover that the two big teachers’ unions were providing the IL Dems. Using his political capital on this issue shows bi-partisan leadership.
Comment by Donnie Elgin Monday, Oct 23, 23 @ 10:10 am
The scholarship is not about middle class kids and parents
By statute these are low income families
Is the fact it is much harder to deny poor kids a leg up the reason for your mis characterization?
https://chicago.chalkbeat.org/2023/5/16/23726229/illinois-tax-credit-voucher-programs-funding-private-schools?_amp=true
Comment by Lucky Pierre Monday, Oct 23, 23 @ 10:15 am
Actually, it is a herd of elephants. Friday the subject of students with disabilities came up. Do private schools provide transportation? Read last week’s Illinois Times story on Harvard Park Elementary.
Comment by Anyone Remember Monday, Oct 23, 23 @ 10:24 am
Let’s be honest, the GOPs messaging game remains on point. ‘Invest in Kids’ sounds great until you start asking questions like “Which kids and why? Could this money be better spent elsewhere?”
Comment by Jocko Monday, Oct 23, 23 @ 10:25 am
-Could this money be better spent elsewhere?”-
With ACT scores at the 30 year low. With many CPS schools having reading and math scores below grade level: you’ve answered the question.
Comment by Steve Monday, Oct 23, 23 @ 10:41 am
===Is the fact it is much harder to deny poor kids===
The monies aren’t for the kids.
The monies are designed to go to the schools, the students as vessels to get the schools the money.
It’s also discriminatory, as all kids do not have the opportunities.
Ignoring the end benefactor of the monies… the schools… is the feature, not the bug.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Oct 23, 23 @ 10:45 am
Stop citing the polling by the Invest supporters, already. The framing question contained a lie: “Supporters say this program … doesn’t use a dime of taxpayer money to do it—it is all funded through private donations.” Invest in Kids is a tax credit program listed in the Comptroller’s Expenditure Report. The results of this poll should not be cited or taken seriously by anyone.
Comment by pro bono Monday, Oct 23, 23 @ 10:49 am
@LP
People are free to donate for scholarships for low income kids. If they need a 75% tax break to do it then that tells me they really aren’t in it for the kids.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Oct 23, 23 @ 10:50 am
==Supporters say this program … doesn’t use a dime of taxpayer money to do it==
That’s because they don’t understand the fact that this is something called a “Tax Expenditure.” It diverts revenue away from the state that would otherwise come to the state. So it most certainly does cost the state taxpayer funds.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Oct 23, 23 @ 10:52 am
==By statute these are low income families==
From your own source: about $90,000 for a family of four in 2023. Once the child receives a scholarship, the family income cannot exceed 400% of the federal poverty level, or about $120,000 for a family of four.
Is $90k-$120k really low-income? It is above the state family median income of $80k, so it seems like a stretch to call it “low”. However, it is nice to see you are in full support of government programs for low-income families.
Comment by supplied_demand Monday, Oct 23, 23 @ 10:57 am
It is much harder to deny the huge support, especially from minorities, for this program that provides poor kids these funds for their education.
That is why you are trying so hard to obfuscate that
Comment by Lucky Pierre Monday, Oct 23, 23 @ 11:08 am
“for this program that provides”
The program provides no such thing. The program provides tax credits. End.
The donors provide those things to the poor kids you are using as props. If the donors are only doing it because they get a credit, and will cease donating without the benefit of the personal tax credit to them, that’s a fault of the donors.
Comment by TheInvisibleMan Monday, Oct 23, 23 @ 11:17 am
The true “cost” of the program is slightly nuanced. The costs include the $75 millions in tax credits given (at a 75% rate). But if 9600 students are attending schools using those funds, aren’t those students ostensibly saving the state and local governments millions in per pupil costs?
Shifting to include a federal tax deduction would mean a lower cost to the state while still allowing the money to be used for school tuition.
This is primarily about power and the teacher unions desire to wield as much of it as possible. To their credit, they have shown their ability to organize and apply pressure to be nearly unmatched right now.
Comment by School Guy Monday, Oct 23, 23 @ 11:21 am
==for this program that provides poor kids these funds for their education.==
Feel free to donate @LP. People are still free to fund these scholarships. If they need a tax break to do so then that says to me they really aren’t in it for the kids. As Rep. Cassidy said, I’d prefer that state not support funding private schools, some of which teach outright hate of others.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Oct 23, 23 @ 11:22 am
===That is why you are trying so hard…===
… to ignore the real financial benefactor *IS* the school
The claim is the student is getting something “of value”
The reality is the school is getting the windfall of cash.
The silence is the truth.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Oct 23, 23 @ 11:23 am
=It is much harder to deny the huge support, especially from minorities, for this program that provides poor kids these funds for their education.=
When Bruce Rauner cut off funding for MAP grants you cheered. So spare me your concern regarding poor kids.
Comment by Pundent Monday, Oct 23, 23 @ 11:45 am
With many folks in politics going the “teacher shaming” route, I am thinking Gov. P is head and shoulders above that kind of nonsense.
The teachers union advocates have had a good supporter in Gov. Pritzker’s administration and jumping on him about Invest in Kids seems to be short sighted.
As we all know, test scores in Illinois are not very good. We are looking at a future generation that currently is having problems with 3rd grade reading and math.
This really is not just an Illinois problem, but this Illinois program is supported by parents and children that see a way out of a pretty sad local school path.
Thinking that a GA member trying to convince a parent that 70% of children in a school district not reading at 3rd grade level is acceptable would seem to be a very hard sell.
Why not give Invest in Kids a few more years as the Gov and the GA work on other options to offer to parents and children in Illinois?
Comment by Back to the Future Monday, Oct 23, 23 @ 12:05 pm
@ LP
You are mistaken and have been led to believe false arguments.
The poverty threshold in the U.S. for a family of four in 2023 is 30,000. These are poor people.
The eligibility clause of the current act allows for people who earn 250% of the poverty limit to be eligible for scholarships. This criterion indicates that households earning $75,000 or less are eligible.
The median income in Illinois this year is about $73,600, and the median household income in Illinois this year is $79,000.
Clearly, either half of Illinois is poor, or the middle class and working class are eligible to receive scholarships to attend private schools under this program.
If you wish to argue only the poor are eligible, then the threshold of eligibility should be 100% of the poverty line, not 250% of the poverty threshold.
Comment by H-W Monday, Oct 23, 23 @ 12:08 pm
=It is much harder to deny the huge support, especially from minorities, for this program that provides poor kids these funds for their education.
That is why you are trying so hard to obfuscate that=
Those kids already have an education that is available to them for free. So this is an option but not a necessity.
It is not huge support by any stretch of the imagination either. The hyperbole that you use only reinforces the notion that you are working very hard to make this program more than it is.
I would love to see a breakdown of the school receiving state money and the communities the students are coming from. That may be listed somewhere but I have not found it yet.
=aren’t those students ostensibly saving the state and local governments millions in per pupil costs?=
The short answer is most likely no. If 9600 students across the state have received scholarships that number is likely spread out throughout the state and no district would lose enough students to affect costs, most of which are generally fixed.
Comment by JS Mill Monday, Oct 23, 23 @ 12:24 pm
===As we all know, test scores in Illinois are not very good.===
And…
===Thinking that a GA member trying to convince a parent that 70% of children in a school district not reading at 3rd grade level is …===
Asked and answered to the matrix of what “reading at level” means in say Illinois or another state
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Oct 23, 23 @ 12:31 pm
=== The political incompetence to go after Pritzker as they did with it needing to play out in the GA first is truly a head scratcher. ===
The IEA and the IFT are anything but politically incompetent.
Vouchers are the hill upon which union members from both organizations and all political stripes are prepared to die.
Ask all the school teachers you know whether they’d prefer public dollars go toprivate schools or their school.
As Rich points out, the unions had no choice in the wake of JB’s statement with legislation bouncing around in the upcoming veto session to send a clear message to lawmakers and to their own members that they will not waiver, and they are prepared to die upon this hill.
I am sure the questionaires for candidate endorsements from both groups asked about the tuition tax credit, and I expect unions believe that lawmakers ought to keep the promises that they made.
Blago used to pull this kind of stuff with the unions too, telling them he would support a tax increase and then flipflopping the next good chance he got. The unions learned their lesson.
== If you wish to argue only the poor are eligible, then the threshold of eligibility should be 100% of the poverty line, not 250% of the poverty threshold. ==
I am willing to bet that there is a lot of shenanigans going on with these tax credits. It involves middle class families feeling the pinch of tuition costs making a tax-deductable donation to the fund, and then — miraculously — recieving a scholarship. As we know, even a charitable donation that is tax-deductable is only deductable for the portion beyond which you recieved anything of value. if you give greenpeace a $10K donation, and they take you on a $7500 trip to Galapogos Islands to say thanks, only $2500 is deductable.
The Illinois Department of Revenue should be asking questions about how many people claiming these tax credits recieved scholarships for their kids.
Comment by Mother Jones Monday, Oct 23, 23 @ 12:31 pm
===The IEA and the IFT are anything but politically incompetent.===
In this instance if a social media blast that was taken down, yes, it’s not like they kept it up.
Incompetence to understanding that they really are going the wrong pressure point.
===Ask all the school teachers you know===
(Sigh)…. There’s a bigger picture here, otherwise why take down the social media.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Oct 23, 23 @ 12:34 pm
“middle-class families feeling the pinch of tuition costs making a tax-deductible donation to the fund, and then — miraculously — receiving a scholarship”
If a family can’t afford the tuition - making a donation and getting a tax 75% credit would but pure stupidity- they would lose $250 for each $1000 donated - better to just pay the tuition….
“Example: A taxpayer files an online application indicating he intends to contribute $1,000 to Children Benefit from Education Scholarship Organization, SGO number 123456 for the benefit of Region 4. As long as the regional or the total statewide maximums have not been reached, the taxpayer will receive a Contribution Authorization Certificate (CAC) from the Department authorizing his $1,000 contribution to the SGO, which equates to a $750 tax credit”
https://tax.illinois.gov/programs/investinkids/faqs.html#faq-item-faq-0-0
Comment by Donnie Elgin Monday, Oct 23, 23 @ 12:44 pm
=== Illinois is now a leftist===
Or, now here me out, the Illinois GOP can start running people that don’t quote Hitler, support coups, and deny election results.
I wouldn’t trust Darren Bailey to organize a sock drawer, and the GOP wanted to put him in charge of DCFS?
The Illinois GOP used to run people like Judy Baar Topinka and Jim Edgar who regardless of political differences had real merit to their careers in political service. On quite a few issues George Ryan was “less liberal” than Glenn Poshard.
If the Illinois GOP wants to win they need to try nominating candidates that want to burn every civic institution to the ground on the way to a Klan rally.
Comment by Candy Dogood Monday, Oct 23, 23 @ 1:33 pm
The minute lifelong Democrats like JB Pritzker and Paul Vallas cross an unpopular plank of the left wing of their party they are labeled radical right wing Republicans
Comment by Lucky Pierre Monday, Oct 23, 23 @ 1:37 pm
=== Do private schools provide transportation? ===
Many of them do.
Comment by Hannibal Lecter Monday, Oct 23, 23 @ 1:49 pm
By the way, good column.
The Sun Times covers important things like this political and educational issue in a deeper dive with insights that other media outlets just don’t do. Really not being critical of other approaches, but sometimes looking at things from a different perspective is healthy.
Comment by Back to the Future Monday, Oct 23, 23 @ 1:51 pm
Social media is poisonous…increasingly.
Comment by Dotnonymous x Monday, Oct 23, 23 @ 1:52 pm
===The minute lifelong Democrats…===
… become IPI talking heads and espouse IPI talking points, they aren’t connected very well with Dem ideology.
You know this, yet…
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Oct 23, 23 @ 1:53 pm
=== I’d prefer that state not support funding private schools, some of which teach outright hate of others. ===
Maybe there can be more strings attached to the recipient schools. Like making a school ineligible if they engage in discrimination against its students, teachers and staff.
I generally support the program, but would not want the recipients to be permitted to engage in discrimination if they are receiving public money.
Comment by Hannibal Lecter Monday, Oct 23, 23 @ 1:55 pm
==The minute==
You’re not very astute when it comes to politics are you? You really are clueless.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Oct 23, 23 @ 1:55 pm
=== Social media is poisonous ===
People are poisonous. Social media is just the tool that toxic people use to spread their venom.
Comment by Hannibal Lecter Monday, Oct 23, 23 @ 2:02 pm
Re: The Calculus of School Vouchers
In 2001, I wrote a short essay on why school vouchers cannot serve the poor. That essay, “Cui Bono? The Calculus of School Vouchers” explained that any monies used to offset the cost of attending private schools for poor people, will not increase the number of seats available in any meaningful way. As a result, schools with adjust the price point in order to reduce demand. The end result will be private schools having more money, with the same clientele that originally was able to afford attending private schools.
The argument can be found at:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/016059760102500208
Comment by H-W Monday, Oct 23, 23 @ 2:07 pm
==Until our public schools are adequately funded across the state==
Moving target aside, how does the equally expensive Property Tax Relief Grant soldier on despite public schools not being adequately funded?
Comment by City Zen Monday, Oct 23, 23 @ 2:16 pm
Props to Candy Dogood for the comment…”I wouldn’t trust Darren Bailey to organize a sock drawer.”
Bailey is not suited for public office as he continues to insert his version of religion into politics. Did Bailey skip the chapter on Separation of Church and State?
Bailey accomplished very little during his time in the Illinois legislature except for creating stunts and gimmicks like blowing up the budget.
During the race for governor, Bailey left a trail of inflammatory statements regarding the city of Chicago. His remarks during his time in Highland Park is another example of his lack of leadership.
Comment by Rudy’s teeth Monday, Oct 23, 23 @ 2:23 pm
=== Do private schools provide transportation? ===
Many of them do.
We sent all three of our Children to a Private Catholic school paying tuition..Choice we made because the education offering was better ……at the same time we obviously continued to pay our Property Taxes to the Public County School district….the Public School District provided bus service for our children to the Catholic School…..and deemed it a bargain for getting our tax revenue without having to provide any resources besides transportation to the students….it continues today.
Comment by Disappointed Suburban Female Monday, Oct 23, 23 @ 2:30 pm
@Donny Elgin, here’s why those many middle class families who donate to Invest are not stupid: Instead of paying tuition of $10,000, say, as they have been doing for years, if they donate that tuition money to the program and specify that it go to their child’s school, as is allowed by the program, they get back 75% of the donation ($7500) as a tax credit, and the school gives them a reduction in tuition in gratitude, or even awards them an Invest in Kids “scholarship” if they make less than $400,000. The family comes out way ahead— especially if they are in a position to donate appreciated stock. The school comes out ahead, with state-funded scholarships allowing them to stretch their private donations to attract more students. The state’s taxpayers lose, since that $7500 could have been used for many other programs, like health care for actually poor children.
By allowing donors to send their donations to the same school their child attends, this program invites the kind of tax evasion @Mother Jones points out. While there is no data provided in Illinois, in other states, the vast majority of voucher students never attended public schools–so this program likely does not “relieve” the public schools of the cost of educating the Invest in Kids scholarship recipients–they were never in public schools.
Comment by pro bono Monday, Oct 23, 23 @ 2:30 pm
In my opinion people are mostly good
Much easier to be poisonous anonymously, especially on social media
Comment by Lucky Pierre Monday, Oct 23, 23 @ 2:34 pm
=== In my opinion people are mostly good ===
I am genuinely surprised that you feel that way. I am usually suspicious of others unless they give me a reason not to feel that way.
Comment by Hannibal Lecter Monday, Oct 23, 23 @ 2:53 pm
===Many of them do.===
ADA compliant transportation.
Comment by Anyone Remember Monday, Oct 23, 23 @ 3:06 pm
==== Maybe there can be more strings attached to the recipient schools. Like making a school ineligible if they engage in discrimination against its students, teachers and staff.====
Another elephant or rhino or other giant beast in the room was that private schools demanded, and got, an exemption from the Racism Free Schools Act this session. This pattern continues a tradition of being exempted from bullying laws, sex ed, LGBTQ history curriculum…you get the picture.
Comment by Kelly Cassidy Monday, Oct 23, 23 @ 3:27 pm
“… continues a tradition of being exempted from … .”
And ADA, IEP, accommodating children with physical / developmental disabilities … .
Comment by Anyone Remember Monday, Oct 23, 23 @ 4:26 pm
=== Another elephant or rhino or other giant beast in the room was that private schools demanded, and got, an exemption from the Racism Free Schools Act this session. This pattern continues a tradition of being exempted from bullying laws, sex ed, LGBTQ history curriculum…you get the picture. ===
So there could, at least in theory, be conditions imposed on the recipient schools. Propose to require any school receiving money under this program to comply with all anti-discrimination laws, rules and regulations. That will tell you where they are really at.
Comment by Hannibal Lecter Monday, Oct 23, 23 @ 4:53 pm
===I am usually suspicious of others unless they give me a reason not to feel that way.===
Houses are very easy to break into if the goal is to break into the house. Thankfully just about all of the people living in our society don’t really want to break into houses so they don’t. They’re not being stopped by the “fear of getting caught” either. Consider the sheer number of vice laws that get broken on a regular basis. I’d wager that in my community there are a lot more people that want to play an illegal game of cards than break into a house — and that wager in of itself would be illegal.
You can be suspicious of others if you like, but I hope you’re not as suspicious of others as you think you are. A lot of the worst acts that occur in our society are organized in the open and involve a lot of participants. As individuals it is pretty unusual to actively seek out a means to harm others.
Comment by Candy Dogood Monday, Oct 23, 23 @ 6:16 pm