47 Comments - Tawk - Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 12:55 pm: So legislative uncertainty cut into enthusiasm for the program. What a shame for those students. - Lucky Pierre - Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 1:12 pm: The definition of Legislative uncertainty in Illinois is getting behind a program that the unions oppose, even if it helps poor kid’s education. - City Zen - Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 1:16 pm: Never really understood the animosity towards this program. The amount of money CPS spends on their employee pension pick-up is double the amount the state budgeted for Invest in Kids across the state. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 1:20 pm: === The definition of Legislative uncertainty in Illinois is getting behind a program that the unions oppose, even if it helps poor kid’s education.=== … and yet it still can’t reach its maximum of donations from the private citizens. Is that the unions’ fault? - Lucky Pierre - Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 1:25 pm: Yes Reading is fundamental The uncertainty of the program continuing certainly contributed to the lower amount donated - Skeptic - Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 1:36 pm: Wasn’t that Rauner’s program to circumvent State funding of parochial schools? Or am I thinking of something else? - Phenomynous - Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 1:37 pm: ”Is that the unions’ fault?” Don’t be dense. This wasn’t about maxing our the programs It was clear that the teachers unions opposed the plan, and Pritzker carried that opposition in his first budget address. People saw that the program was on the chopping block and scaled back or eliminated donations, which then eliminated scholarship opportunities. That’s all there is to it. Maxing out a program and undercutting a program are two separate items. - Collinsville Kevin - Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 1:38 pm: Unconstitutional use of state funds to support religious schools. Guess nobody cares about that. - thechampaignlife - Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 1:43 pm: ===Guess nobody cares about that.=== You have standing as a taxpayer to file a lawsuit but have not. So, you are correct that nobody cares. Mostly because case law contradicts your premise that it is unconstitutional. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 1:44 pm: (Sigh) Has the program EVER reached its goal? It’s not “dense”, it’s looking at a program that never had the support others thought it was going to have. But please, let’s be less dense and ignore the total failing since jump street. - City Zen - Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 1:50 pm: ==Unconstitutional use of state funds to support religious schools.== Wouldn’t that include MAP grants? - fs - Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 1:50 pm: == Unconstitutional use of state funds to support religious schools. Guess nobody cares about that.== Similar programs have been challenged, all the way up to the Supreme Court, and upheld as Constitutional. Guess you don’t care about that. - fs - Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 1:52 pm: == total failing== Nearly 6,000 families able to choose a better school for their child. Total failure. - Thomas Paine - Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 1:53 pm: === Many of the donors we’ve reached out to subsequent of that say ‘we thought the program was over‘ === The plural of “anecdote” still isn’t “data.” Also, if you reached out to them, they told you they thought it was over, and they still didn’t give…what does that tell you? Maybe they maxed out their first year. Maybe they thought this program was going to break the backs of the CTU and re-elect Rauner and they were disappointed by the result. Maybe changed in the tax code influenced their giving. Maybe they moved to Florida. Maybe it’s a combination of factors. Hey, let’s release the names of your “donors” and survey them independently to find out. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 1:54 pm: === Nearly 6,000 families able to choose a better school for their child. Total failure.=== Has it ever reached the maximum in donations? I think that was the question. Thanks. - Education Matters - Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 1:55 pm: One only need look to other states with similar programs to know that it a) exceeded other new states in terms of first years of fundraising, and b) kept pace with how 75% tax credit scholarship programs perform. The reality is that a 75% credit still requires a lot of fundraising effort, donors still have to give a lot out of pocket (it would still mean raising $25M annually if it reached its cap). Try to think of a scholarship fundraising effort that can raise $25M without any advance work. There aren’t any. - notsosure - Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 1:55 pm: Doesn’t Mike McClain own a piece of one of the management companies behind Empower? I might be wrong about that, but I thought he was involved somehow. The problem with this program is that a lot of $ that used to go straight to these same schools from these same donors is now cycling through third parties who get to keep a %. Oh, and the state is subsidizing religious education through the tax credit. Not everyone’s thrilled with that either. - Phenomynous - Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 1:56 pm: What goals are you talking about? Not meeting the statutory limit in contributions? Do you know how many “goals” aren’t obtained by other state spending programs? If that’s the metric there there a lot of places to cut. The point is, this program helped kids try a different option for education. The Pritzker Administration didn’t do the program any favors and less money was donated, and less children got scholarship opportunities. The Governor eventually walked that pledge back. I just don’t get how is giving kids options considered failing? Or what the goal (since you are apparently the one defining it) even is. 5,858 kids got a new opportunity and you call it failing. You are really something dude. - JS Mill - Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 2:02 pm: =Similar programs have been challenged, all the way up to the Supreme Court, and upheld as Constitutional. Guess you don’t care about that.= Funny, but when you are talking about upholding the constitution the only sacred part if the 2nd amendment. Tax money for religious organizations? Sure, no problem. Go read the plain text of the constitution. =The definition of Legislative uncertainty in Illinois is getting behind a program that the unions oppose, even if it helps poor kid’s education.= The donors are donating less. =The amount of money CPS spends on their employee pension pick-up is double the amount the state budgeted for Invest in Kids across the state.= So what? This program is socialism for parochial schools, a government bailout. These schools accepting government money (coming right out of the tax coffers, redirected tax money) should have to play by the same rules as any other school that gets government money. Including Universities that get MAP grant money. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 2:02 pm: === Not meeting the statutory limit in contributions? Do you know how many “goals” aren’t obtained by other state spending programs?=== 1) Yes. 2) We’re not talking about “other” programs, were talking about “this” program, touted and celebrated as the watershed towards that school funding bill, that Rauner first vetoed. === I just don’t get how is giving kids options considered failing? Or what the goal (since you are apparently the one defining it) even is.=== Are we sure that the goal was too high, or the hope that it would be an overwhelming success would hamper… you guessed it.., the teachers union. === 5,858 kids got a new opportunity and you call it failing=== It failed to reach its ceiling. It’s failed to get the maximum help to help the maximum kids. I’ll keep all this in mind when folks describe “failing stuff” that don’t meet goals but do good work in the future.., - thechampaignlife - Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 2:06 pm: ===5,858 kids got a new opportunity=== I would like to know how many of those were already attending the school and are just doing so now with the scholarship. I know it is happening, I am just now sure how much. Not to say it isn’t helping a low income family continue to afford private school. - Southwestsider - Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 2:06 pm: =It’s not “dense,” it’s looking at a program that never had the support others thought it was going to have. But please, let’s be less dense and ignore the total failing since jump street.= Say that to 5,858 kids. - NoGifts - Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 2:08 pm: Where’s the evidence that the kids learned more in private schools? - Oswego Willy - Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 2:08 pm: Capitol Fax… April 2018 === January 8, 2018 News-Gazette editorial… Illinois’ new “Invest in Kids” scholarship program got off to a fast start last week, attracting more than $36 million of the $100 million limit on its first day. From Rich, about the editorial. “The governor’s pet project did, indeed, get off to a fast start, but it has stalled out since then. The total contributed as of today is $41 million - just $5 million more than three months ago and $59 million short of the $100 million goal. Also, just $36 million has been received so far.“=== I’m just confused how a plan designed to give tax breaks in such a “highly taxed” state can’t get to the lofty goals. I thought this tax break would get us to $120 the way it was so critical to that school plan. - notsosure - Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 2:09 pm: A better way of measuring the success of this program would be to compare the # of scholarship kids before and after its inception. Was there new $ being donated, or were the well-advised big $ types just using this vehicle to get a tax break? No one talks about that; just how many scholarships are granted. My guess: most of those kids qualified for other scholarships before. - Phenomynous - Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 2:15 pm: OW, you are the only one talking about the goals of the program. As if in the law it says, and the goal is to max out tax deductible contributions as the measurement for success. The goal, as I see it, was to give kids some opportunities by allowing persons and business to support scholarship programs using a tax benefit to encourage support. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 2:20 pm: - Phenomynous - ===.., you are the only one talking about the goals of the program=== … and yet the reason it’s up for discussion is… donations dropped 18% for a program never sniffing its maximum potential. So you don’t care it’s failing or… I, too, would like to see of the 5,800 or so getting monies, how many are “new” to the schools since it’s inception. Wouldn’t you? Isn’t another goal bringing more students into a choice situation… pertinent? - Phenomynous - Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 2:28 pm: It’s less likely to meet the caps (not goals) with a Governor who proposed cutting a program because the teachers’ unions hated it. That’s it man. That’s the point. Is it the unions fault that the program hasn’t capped? No. Is it the unions/Governor’s fault that there were less donations this past year? According to a Empower Illinois, Yes. - The G - Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 2:30 pm: The same people who argued that the program is a failure because TOO MUCH “public” money would go to fund private schools are now saying that the program is a failure because NOT ENOUGH “public” money is going to fund private schools. Btw, it’s NOT “public” money. - thechampaignlife - Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 2:33 pm: ===Where’s the evidence that the kids learned more in private schools?=== That data is being collected right now. This year, IIK recipients must take the same standardized test as public school students. That will give us a measure (albeit imperfect) of success. - fs - Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 2:35 pm: == Go read the plain text of the constitution.== The establishment clause was written at a time when virtually all education was religious based in some form, so you’re saying the intent of the authors of that was to completely prohibit any public funding of education? Try again, sparky. - NoGifts - Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 2:36 pm: The goal of the program is better-educated kids. That’s what should be measured. Otherwise you’re measuring inputs not results. - 17% Solution - Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 2:37 pm: == The same people == Who are these people? I haven’t noticed this. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 2:40 pm: === It’s less likely to meet the caps (not goals) with a Governor who proposed cutting a program because the teachers’ unions hated it. That’s it man. That’s the point.=== LOL “I’m not going to take a tax break to help private schools with this scholarship donation… because teachers’ union”? The first thing *I* check when considering a tax break donation is… “Hmm, I wonder if the teachers’ union likes this?” That’s it man… not enough folks see the tax break as “worth it” - Education Matters - Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 2:40 pm: The goal of the program is ensuring kids get an education that meets their individual needs. Kids who are bullied get a safe environment. Kids with unique learning needs get a school that can properly accommodate them. Kids get equity - kids should have access to the same private schools that most of the legislature and their staff currently has. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 2:42 pm: === The goal of the program is ensuring kids get an education that meets their individual needs. Kids who are bullied get a safe environment. Kids with unique learning needs get a school that can properly accommodate them. Kids get equity - kids should have access to the same private schools that most of the legislature and their staff currently has.=== How many of those receiving scholarships are new, and new because of the opportunity? Sounds like a good question to your point. - Education Matters - Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 3:00 pm: OW, I don’t see that in their data. I do see 46,150 applied for the program, and that it would require almost $300,000,000 to meet all of those kids needs. Do you think these 46k students are all private school kids? - Oswego Willy - Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 3:12 pm: === I do see 46,150 applied for the program=== Roughly, 12% or so are benefitting. Roughly 88% are not. So who is really benefiting? 100% of the schools are getting the money. ===… it would require almost $300,000,000 to meet all of those kids needs.=== Think about the tax breaks if the wealthy even met the $100 million. It’s those not donating that are letting down the kids. === Do you think these 46k students are all private school kids?=== Not relevant, since the pertinent data is the opportunities given to the 5,800+ kids, not the ones that were not selected. - R A T - Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 3:39 pm: OW, this is completely over the top even for you. Saying things about a one-year program never “sniffing its maximum potential” is bad enough but when it was a Rauner initiative (lame duck loser) and was going to be attacked vigorously by the newly elected governor, is abhorrently silly. And I, like so many others, thought this was already cut. - west chicago - Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 3:44 pm: People can always donate to scholarships. The question is should their donation be subsidized with state funds that could be used for other programs including public education. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 3:46 pm: === Saying things about a one-year program never “sniffing its maximum potential” is bad enough but when it was a Rauner initiative (lame duck loser) and was going to be attacked vigorously by the newly elected governor, is abhorrently silly.=== Cut or not, it didn’t reach its potential, and blaming a teachers union or a new governor as to why folks, who look for tax breaks, aren’t giving, that’s comical to the teachers’ unions living in everyone’s head and refusing to take full advantage of a tax break… because of that union. - R A T - If you like to discuss those points, that would be a good discussion, but this shadow or “unknowing” paired with teachers’ union angst is more over the top then the usual excuses. With respect. - 17% Solution - Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 4:02 pm: It was the donors’ obligation to pay attention to see if the Invest in Kids scholarship tax benefit was still around. If they didn’t bother to check it out, then they didn’t bother. ‘Nuff said. - Simple Simon - Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 4:09 pm: The question is should their donation be subsidized with state funds” This. Legal or not, this is not a program that I as a taxpayer can support. Give the state dollars to public schools, and let the donors continue to donate to private schools if they wish, just without a tax credit. And many folks supporting this program are probably complaining about how high their property taxes are. - Last Bull Moose - Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 4:23 pm: I dislike using tax breaks to fund policy. This case is well known. Most tax breaks are less noticeable and hidden from the public. Using public money to fund individual scholarships is used at the Federal level with the G. I. bill. The state constitution seems to be more restrictive. - Phenomynous - Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 4:32 pm: OW, most wealthy people and/or businesses have a long-term tax strategy that includes the viability of said strategy, If I don’t, or my accountant doesn’t, see long-term sustainability in a program then it’s time to explore other causes to donate to. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 4:36 pm: === most wealthy people and/or businesses have a long-term tax strategy that includes the viability of said strategy=== It was a 5 year program. That’s all we knew from the beginning. If anything, the 5 year window in of itself caused that concern, not Pritzker. So… there’s that part too. Do accountants also fear the teachers’ union or do they see tax breaks, yearly, as… tax breaks? - 17% Solution - Tuesday, Feb 11, 20 @ 7:58 am: == People saw that the program was on the chopping block and scaled back or eliminated donations, which then eliminated scholarship opportunities. That’s all there is to it.== Maybe be they should have paid attention. That’s all there is to it, pay attention. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.