Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

* UPDATED x1 * IEA president calls tax credit proposal “ransom payment”

Posted in:

Illinois
Updated Posts

* From the IEA…

After years of starving the education system in Illinois, many people came together in an unprecedented way to pass an education funding reform bill that helps provide “adequate and equitable” funding throughout the state.

Illinois has been ranked, for years, 50th among all states in funding our children’s future. Senate Bill 1 will change that. But in an effort to get enough votes to get SB 1 passed, it is being proposed that the state fund a tax credit (voucher) program.

“It’s a bitter irony that, to get the governor to do the right thing on school funding, the General Assembly is being pressured to do the wrong thing and pass a voucher program,” said Kathi Griffin, president of the Illinois Education Association.

“A voucher program is the wrong thing because it reduces money available to educate children in public schools, because private schools are not accountable for how they spend public dollars and because there is no advantage for the children this proposal is, allegedly, intended to help.”

In an age where accountability means everything – where standards are being implemented to ensure students are being taught what they need to succeed in life – why would Illinois take public money and give it to private schools that have no accountability?

“The voucher scheme is essentially a ransom payment that is being demanded in order to get fair funding for public school children statewide. It’s wrong,” Griffin said. “If we are really interested in helping children, the obvious thing to do is support existing schools. We oppose this voucher scheme.”

Again, and with feeling this time. It’s not a voucher program. The MAP grant program is much more akin to a voucher system. The state gives money to colleges (public and private) based on awards to individual students who apply and qualify financially.

This is not that. It’s an income tax credit for individual donations to private schools (and even public schools for out-of-district tuition assistance). There’s a big difference. The state doesn’t hand you or your kid’s school a voucher, and you won’t get a tax credit when you pay your own kid’s tuition, either. You have to donate to the school’s scholarship fund to qualify for the credit and then that school hands out the awards under certain state guidelines.

* Anyway, the IEA is also asking members to contact legislators and urge them to oppose the proposal. And some Downstate legislators in both parties are starting to feel heat on this topic as we ramp up to next week’s House action.

*** UPDATE *** Press release…

The Illinois Alliance of Administrators of Special Education (IAASE), a unit of the Council for Administrators of Special Education (CASE) opposes all publicly funded subsidies of private education such as private school voucher programs (including tax credits, taxpayer savings grants/scholarships, and portability) for all students, including students with disabilities, as they are contrary to the best interests of students and their families, the public school system, local communities, and taxpayers. Public education is essential to provide equitable opportunities and positive educational outcomes for all students, including students with disabilities in the least restrictive environment. IAASE opposes public subsidy of private education for the following reasons:

• Students with disabilities do not have equal access to private schools. Mission-based entrance policies which describe students who “match” a private school’s mission are often discriminatory against students with disabilities. There is evidence of discriminatory practice within this context based on race, disability, and socioeconomic status. Any organization receiving public funding must offer equal access to their programs.
• Private schools significantly lack accountability. As such, the measures so critical to considering school success are missing from private education. Standardized assessment, student achievement targets, funding oversight, reporting requirements regarding discipline, oversight on least restrictive environment, transition outcomes, discipline, disproportionality, maintenance of effort, evaluation timelines, special education teacher certification requirements, incidents of restraint and seclusion and other essential oversight required of the public school systems are necessary to ensure equitable access for students with disabilities.
• Students with disabilities and their families are not guaranteed basic due process rights afforded under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) when they enter private schools. If parents make a unilateral decision to enroll their child in a private school, the right to an individualized education program (IEP), special education and related services, mediation, dispute resolution and other due process rights are not available. Therefore, participation in the educational program is limited for students with disabilities in private schools.
• Subsidizing private schools with public funds does irreparable harm to public schools. Access to equitable public opportunities and positive educational outcomes are based on a strong state and federal investment in public education. Use of public dollars to pay for private education decreases the funding available to ensure a strong public school system which is essential to quality educational opportunities for students with disabilities. A parallel system of education publicly funded in the private sector is unsustainable for taxpayers and harmful to students with disabilities.

For these reasons, IAASE calls upon the Illinois House of Representatives and the Illinois State Senate to oppose any statutory or administrative change that promotes public subsidy to private education, such as vouchers, scholarships, voucher-like programs and/or tax credits.

posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Aug 24, 17 @ 12:24 pm

Comments

So Rich, I hear you saying you oppose this voucher program….. :>

Comment by Ghost Thursday, Aug 24, 17 @ 12:26 pm
Where is the loophole in the constitution? Article X:

SECTION 3. PUBLIC FUNDS FOR SECTARIAN PURPOSES FORBIDDEN
Neither the General Assembly nor any county, city, town,
township, school district, or other public corporation, shall
ever make any appropriation or pay from any public fund
whatever, anything in aid of any church or sectarian purpose,
or to help support or sustain any school, academy, seminary,
college, university, or other literary or scientific
institution, controlled by any church or sectarian
denomination whatever; nor shall any grant or donation of
land, money, or other personal property ever be made by the
State, or any such public corporation, to any church, or for
any sectarian purpose.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)

Comment by 360 Degree TurnAround Thursday, Aug 24, 17 @ 12:31 pm
360 - but the state would not be giving the parochial schools the money. The state would be giving a tax credit to parents who take advantage of the program.

Comment by Curl of the Burl Thursday, Aug 24, 17 @ 12:33 pm
A voucher program involves giving every family in Illinois, a cash voucher for each minor child, which they can then use to pay for their children’s education. The proposals being made are not vouchers. They are (a) cash transfers to private schools, and tax credits reimbursements for private school education. As such, they discriminate against the majority of citizens of the state. They take money away from the state treasury to enhance private schools that cannot survive in the private market. They reduce the tax burdens of those who can afford to opt out of the public schools that the state is mandated to provide, and the vast majority of taxpayers are obligated to pay for.

Comment by H-W Thursday, Aug 24, 17 @ 12:35 pm
I know I often revert back to talking about Springfield institutions but since I live here I actually know about the situations. There are parents in the capital area who would greatly benefit from this program. There are a few schools in town with 90+% poverty rates. 90+%. A large enough tax credit would be an ideal way to help some kids get into a decent private school via a tax credit system.

Comment by Curl of the Burl Thursday, Aug 24, 17 @ 12:35 pm
I’m not being adversarial at all, but…”shall
ever make any appropriation or pay from any public fund
whatever, anything in aid of any church or sectarian purpose,
or to help support or sustain any school…”

Comment by 360 Degree TurnAround Thursday, Aug 24, 17 @ 12:38 pm
Curl - I heard there were two components of this plan, one of which did actually involve giving up to $75 M (down from $100 M) to private schools, by allowing donors to offset their tax burdens. Off-setting tax burdens is a form of government payment to private education at the behest of those who can afford to donate. It allows these people to target where their tax burdens will be spent.

Comment by H-W Thursday, Aug 24, 17 @ 12:38 pm
Rich, respectfully, donating to school funds is a part of a lot of Catholic school tuition schema: donate/raise X and you pay Y, don’t donate/raise and you pay Y+Z.

I see the point you’re making but it seems like a distinction without a difference in practice.

Comment by Will Caskey Thursday, Aug 24, 17 @ 12:40 pm
Burl, if you think that logic will pass the Court you hsve o.d.ed on pension “reform” Kool-Aid.

Comment by wondering Thursday, Aug 24, 17 @ 12:40 pm
This is public money used to make private schools free or low cost. The institutions that receive the money or determined by private individuals, and the quality or inclusiveness of instruction is not subject to accountability by the state.

This may not be a voucher program, but it’s effect is the same.

Comment by Lurker Thursday, Aug 24, 17 @ 12:43 pm
I almost forgot, Kathy Griffin is also an “enemy”. She obviously serves special interests, those that want to educate their kids.

Comment by 360 Degree TurnAround Thursday, Aug 24, 17 @ 12:43 pm
360, Like curl said, businesses and individuals would give money to the schools, the government isn’t. So this bill just lessens the tax burden on groups of people. Also, it’s interesting some times how the schools are organized on paper to be “separate” entities from the church to avoid things like you mention.

As to the post, I get that calling it a voucher is lazy and incorrect Rich, but technically since the state would have less money for public schools and private schools would (potentially) have more, it is a redistribution of (what would have been) public funds, so most of her points stand, just not the label.

Comment by Perrid Thursday, Aug 24, 17 @ 12:46 pm
360 and Wondering - then how can Wheaton College or Illinois Wesleyan or DePaul U accept MAP grant payments? They are all religious-affiliated and religious-controlled. Lincoln Christian University - which is pretty much nothing more than a seminary school - accepts MAP students as well.

Comment by Curl of the Burl Thursday, Aug 24, 17 @ 12:46 pm
We also already have a private school state tax credit. I have used it ever since my son started a private, church-based elementary school. So the practice is already in place and was even increased in the not-too-distant future. I believe you can get up to $750 per enrolled child but I might be mistaken since I filed our taxes 6+ months ago.

Comment by Curl of the Burl Thursday, Aug 24, 17 @ 12:49 pm
These would violate the spirit, but probably not the precise wording of the Illinois Constitution.

Technically they are not an appropriation or payment from a public fund.

However they would reduce State tax income and
would be a tremendous change in indirect but substantial support of private (not public) schools.

THE question is what will all the supporters of SB 1 do?

Will the school superintendents (and others) continue to support SB 1 with this ransom payment?

What is more important: SB 1 or indirect public funding of private schools?

Comment by winners and losers Thursday, Aug 24, 17 @ 12:49 pm
Burl - There are actually two proposals, I believe. One involves a direct expenditure of up to $75 M by the the state on private education scholarships. This would be funded at the behest of affluent donors, via their deferring payment of their state income tax obligations (e.g., they give money to the scholarship fund, and the state gives them a direct tax credit for making that donation). In essence, the state is giving tax credits for private school expenditures to these people.

In addition, the state is also being asked to give tax credits at a 75% rate for any parental expenditure on tuition to private schools. That will almost certainly be a huge number.

In essence, these proposals amount to the state significantly reducing state income tax burdens for people who pay for private education. It literally diminishes the state treasury via directing would-be tax revenues toward private schools and private school scholarships, at the literal behest of donors to private schools.

Comment by H-W Thursday, Aug 24, 17 @ 12:49 pm
My sense from afar is that this tax credit is Rauner’s face-saver for the Chicago money.

Rauner is so wobbly right now that he can’t go to the mattresses over school funding. I doubt if he could if he was in a strong position.

If the tax credit passes, the already highly competitive recruiting wars for football and basketball players among Catholic high schools is going to be cranked up exponentially.

Boosters shell out plenty to provide player scholarships now. They’ll be first in line to pony up and claim the credits.

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Aug 24, 17 @ 12:51 pm
Call it whatever, but it is an erosion or divsersion of funds that could otherwise support public education and is a BAD idea

Comment by Elliott Ness Thursday, Aug 24, 17 @ 12:51 pm
Seems like a pretty blatant circumvention of the constitution. If we collected the tax money and gave it to Catholic school X, it’s unconstitutional. If we let people donate it and give them a 100% tax credit for that amount, it’s fine? It is functionally the exact same thing.

Comment by PJ Thursday, Aug 24, 17 @ 12:53 pm
Are there upper limits on how much credit one person could get? Or could like 75 uber rich people who would rather give money to Catholic Schools than the state each get $1 Million?

Comment by Grand Avenue Thursday, Aug 24, 17 @ 12:54 pm
If Rauner had a Comms team they would be promoting the heck out of this in the black community.

Comment by Grand Avenue Thursday, Aug 24, 17 @ 12:55 pm
===donate/raise X and you pay Y, don’t donate/raise and you pay Y+Z.===

Will, aren’t current contributions to 501 (c) 3 organizations deductible? How is this proposal different?

And I’m a Catholic school parent, as well as an alumnus of Catholic high and elementary schools, and I’ve never heard of your scheme.

Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Aug 24, 17 @ 12:55 pm
Also 360, I’m not a lawyer but there was a recent US SC decision that said religious private schools couldn’t be denied public grants that they would otherwise be eligible for. I think this would apply here, and it might trump IL’s constitution, though again, I am not a lawyer.
http://www.npr.org/2017/06/26/534084013/supreme-court-rules-religious-school-can-use-taxpayer-funds-for-playground

Comment by Perrid Thursday, Aug 24, 17 @ 12:57 pm
From the IEA alert:

Please do not support the school voucher scheme being proposed as a compromise to Senate Bill 1. Everyone agrees that funding inequity exists in Illinois.

Now is not the time to divert more resources away from the students and schools that need them the most.

• Vouchers don’t make children better students. Strong public schools do.
• Private schools are not held accountable by the communities they exist in. Public schools have locally elected school boards.
• Vouchers don’t have to cover all the costs associated with a private school. Public schools don’t have added cost.
• Private schools can refuse to teach your child. Public schools welcome all children.
• Many people don’t want their public dollars going to a private school. Everyone wants a strong public school in their district

Comment by winners and losers Thursday, Aug 24, 17 @ 12:59 pm
No one can say that I’m not fair on the message board, because I am not sure this supports my argument. Here is a release from the Institute of Justice in 2001:

Press Release | June 29, 2001
John Kramer
Vice President for Communications

Washington, D.C.- In yet another victory for Illinois families, the Supreme Court of Illinois today refused to reconsider the ruling of the Fourth District Court of Appeals that the Illinois educational expenses tax credit law is constitutional. The ruling of the three-judge panel in February affirmed last April’s ruling by Judge Thomas Appleton of the Sangamon County Circuit Court also finding the tax credit to be fully constitutional. The tax credit was under attack from the Illinois Education Association and other special-interest organizations opposed to education reform.

“This is the sixth consecutive court to have upheld the constitutionality of this form of school choice,” said Institute for Justice President Chip Mellor. “Today’s Illinois Supreme Court decision should bring an end to the constitutional battle over the tax credit law and help parents get the best possible education for their children regardless of whether the school of their choice is public, private or parochial.”

The teachers’ union and its allies had argued that the law, which provides a credit against state income taxes for 25 percent of tuition, book fees or lab fees incurred by K-12 students at public or private schools up to a maximum of $500 per family, violated four provisions of the Illinois Constitution, two of which deal with establishment of religion. Each of the courts to hear the case, however, has emphatically rejected these arguments.

The Supreme Court’s decision let stand a ruling by Appellate Court Judge Rita Garman stating that the tax credit does not violate the Illinois Constitution because no public money is spent at religious schools. Rather, the tax credit allows Illinois parents to keep more of their own money to spend on the education of their children as they see fit.

The appellate court’s ruling went on to say, however, that the tax credit would still be constitutional even if one considered the money claimed through the credit to constitute public funds. This is because the tax credit is fully consistent with both U.S. Supreme Court and Illinois Supreme Court precedent indicating that programs providing general educational assistance are constitutional so long as religious and nonreligious options are treated equally and funds are guided by the private and independent choices of parents.

This lawsuit is the second attacking the constitutionality of the tax credit. Earlier this year, the Illinois Supreme Court refused to hear a similar case filed by the Illinois Federation of Teachers that also challenged the constitutionality of the Illinois educational expenses tax credit law. The Institute represents Illinois families in that case as well.

Comment by 360 Degree TurnAround Thursday, Aug 24, 17 @ 1:00 pm
Is this a transfer of resources to private schools? Yes
Is it a voucher program? No
Is it constitutional? Maybe

The most amusing outcome is a compromise now with the courts striking down tax credit program later.

Comment by PragmaticR Thursday, Aug 24, 17 @ 1:00 pm
Good to see the IEA is as confused as ever. And to think their many of their employees collect teacher pensions.

Comment by City Zen Thursday, Aug 24, 17 @ 1:00 pm
The primary advocate of this tax credit process is the Catholic church. This hop, skip and jump two step approach is a fund raising technique private (mostly religious schools) to use tax payer funds to fund their religion.

A year or so ago, Rauner bragged about the millions he has ‘giving to schools’. Now, he wants a tax credit also.

Comment by JIm O Thursday, Aug 24, 17 @ 1:02 pm
Hey- for many people Charter schools are the only salvation from CPS’ failing schools

Comment by Sue Thursday, Aug 24, 17 @ 1:09 pm
===Hey- for many people Charter schools are the only salvation from CPS’ failing schools===

Rauner even has a Charter School named for his family… all the while clouting his denied Winnetka-living daughter into Payton Prep… but… let’s focus on Rauner and his strong belief in Charter Schools… lol

Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Aug 24, 17 @ 1:12 pm
Well, the IEA would know all about holding people for ransom. Every time they go on strike they hold children as hostages until the taxpayers pay up.

Comment by Really Thursday, Aug 24, 17 @ 1:16 pm
Just playing devil’s advocate here… if you donate to a religious institution or religious charity (e.g. Catholic Charities) and take a tax deduction, would those that are arguing this ins in violation of the state constitution also argue that is?

Comment by Just Observing Thursday, Aug 24, 17 @ 1:18 pm
I don’t care about private schools. I want our constitutionally mandated responsibilities funded and that system fixed.

Governor Rauner messed this up. This deal he wants with private school funding doesn’t help.

Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, Aug 24, 17 @ 1:27 pm
This is NOT a tax deduction, but a dollar for dollar tax credit.

Comment by winners and losers Thursday, Aug 24, 17 @ 1:28 pm
“if taxpayers make a $20,000 donation to a scholarship organization, they not only get a $20,000 state tax credit, but a federal tax deduction valued up to $7,000. The donor could pay $27,000 less in taxes based on a $20,000 donation.”

In Some States, Donating to Private Schools Can Earn You a Profit
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/17/us/politics/in-some-states-donating-to-private-schools-can-earn-you-a-profit.html?_r=0

Comment by winners and losers Thursday, Aug 24, 17 @ 1:33 pm
I am confused, there is already a private school tuition tax credit in Illinois. I used it this year. What does the new bill do?

Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Aug 24, 17 @ 1:36 pm
==In Some States, Donating to Private Schools Can Earn You a Profit==

How much could one profit from a $100 million donation to Northwestern? Asking for a friend.

Comment by City Zen Thursday, Aug 24, 17 @ 1:36 pm
So, the legislature is going to bailout private schools at the taxpayers expense?

Comment by bailin Thursday, Aug 24, 17 @ 1:38 pm
===How much could one profit from a $100 million donation to Northwestern? Asking for a friend.===

Or a library and a Dorm at Dartmouth.

Diana Rauner calls that “strengthening the brand”.

I read that in an email

Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Aug 24, 17 @ 1:39 pm
Oswego. - what’s your point other then being a union troll

Comment by Sue Thursday, Aug 24, 17 @ 1:39 pm
If you donate $100 million to Northwestern, you do NOT get a dollar for dollar tax credit on your Illinois income taxes.

Comment by winners and losers Thursday, Aug 24, 17 @ 1:40 pm
Aw - Sue -

Attacking me isn’t making any points to the argument.

I’m not in a union, I have no affiliation with a union, if anything unions don’t see me as anything, let alone their troll.

When a union reaches out to me, I’ll let you know. K? K.

Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Aug 24, 17 @ 1:41 pm
I’m not being adversarial at all, but…”shall
ever make any appropriation or pay from any public fund
whatever, anything in aid of any church or sectarian purpose,
or to help support or sustain any school…”

Using your logic 360 the 5% tax credit I get as it were for giving money to my church would not allowed either.

Comment by oneman Thursday, Aug 24, 17 @ 1:43 pm
Sue, what’s your point about charter schools, which are not the issue here?

Charter schools can unionize, by the way.

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Aug 24, 17 @ 1:45 pm
“A voucher program is the wrong thing because it reduces money available to educate children in public schools, because private schools are not accountable for how they spend public dollars and because there is no advantage for the children this proposal is, allegedly, intended to help.”

So besides the ‘voucher program’ branding, then to be consistent the IEA would have to be against any sort of tax credit. Since the ‘tax credit’, I get for any charitable donation takes money away from school children.

So for example, if down the road the governor suggested the same thing but it was money given to organizations that provide children’s health care or educational grants for teachers the IEA should be against it since it takes money away from the state or education.

Then again perhaps they don’t want it to be easier for anyone to get their kid educated by someone who isn’t a union member, which since they are a union is a reasonable position for them to take. If that is the case they should be adults and admit it.

Comment by Oneman Thursday, Aug 24, 17 @ 1:48 pm
In this case, the devil truly will be in the details. My current understanding is that there are 2 components to this. One being a dollar-for-dollar deduction from state taxes paid (or a 75% deduction from the bottom line under one proposal)for those who contribute to the the private scholarship fund. The second being the handing out of scholarships from that fund to “low-income” students to attend private/parochial schools.
Who determines who gets the scholarships and what the income cutoff line will be for a recipient are big unanswered questions.

Comment by Decaf Coffee Party Thursday, Aug 24, 17 @ 1:50 pm
Sue - I say this with respect. If the problem you describe is that people choose charter schools because Chicago Public Schools are bad, then isn’t the government obligated to spend the commonwealth of fixing the public schools, rather than deflecting tax revenues toward private schools? Diminishing funding for public schools by reducing tax revenues for people willing to fund private education does not fix the public problem. Government is supposed to use the commonwealth to provide for the common good. The private sector operates under other processes.

Comment by H-W Thursday, Aug 24, 17 @ 1:51 pm
I may be wrong, but I suspect what makes tax credits, Map grants and various other public expenditures at private schools constitutional is the fact that access to funds is provided equally to all (both public and private schools).

Anyone can spend their Map grant at the school of their choice. All parents can get tax credits or deduct some of their children’s educational expenses. Everybody gets textbook loans and transportation.

Maybe “public” school parents should get in on the “scholarship” idea too. (athletics? band? clubs?) Why not try a plan that helps everybody?

Comment by Help_all_Sides Thursday, Aug 24, 17 @ 1:53 pm
Are there any restrictions on this? For example, can I donate the price of my kid’s tuition to the school in the form of a “scholarship donation” with the explicit understanding that my kid will be awarded said scholarship?

Comment by Sox Fan Thursday, Aug 24, 17 @ 1:58 pm
School competition doesn’t work - it exacerbates bad educational practices like “drill and kill” to get test scores up, and pushing out students who aren’t succeeding. Non-public schools spend time and money marketing themselves or providing incentives for enrollment. Studies show voucher programs actually decrease educational achievement for students. This is a failed model that we should be divesting from, not spending another $100 million on.

Comment by Century Club Thursday, Aug 24, 17 @ 2:03 pm
Too Rich’s point: it might technically not be a voucher program, but since school vouchers are far less popular than tax credits and scholarships, I would stick with the voucher language if I am an opponent.

As for the legality? Maybe, but who can say for sure. It does not seem that students who attend public schools would be eligible for program. That makes it very different from the tuition tax credit. And the reported involvement of the Cardinal in negotiating the deal will not help the legal case.

But it ain’t great public policy. It is essentially political pork for really rich people who could, if they so wanted, write $10 million checks to archdiocese tomorrow to provide scholarships if they wanted.

Comment by Thomas Paine Thursday, Aug 24, 17 @ 2:06 pm
=school competition doesn’t work - it exacerbates bad educational practices like “drill and kill” to get test scores up, and pushing out students who aren’t succeeding.=

Then why in the world do so many public school teachers who should be “in the know” opt to send their own children to private schools?

Comment by Robert the 1st Thursday, Aug 24, 17 @ 2:36 pm
Robert the 1st - Do you have some numbers on that claim? How many public school teachers do this, and how many do not?

Comment by H-W Thursday, Aug 24, 17 @ 2:44 pm
Income is obviously a factor. Check out the chart on the top of page 3.

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED485524.pdf

Comment by Robert the 1st Thursday, Aug 24, 17 @ 2:46 pm
Robert the 1st,

Curious. Is 37% now considered a plurality? Sorta’ like 3/5ths, I get it “fun with numbers.”

Comment by Ipso Facto Thursday, Aug 24, 17 @ 2:50 pm
38.7%

Comment by Ipso Facto Thursday, Aug 24, 17 @ 2:52 pm
HW- there they go again- the answer is always more money- public schools in inner cities have been dismil failures- Shen charters have been given the opportunity they prove it’s not the students but the public schools which Re the problem. D.C. Until the program was cut off after Union challenges- NYC both have demonstrated that Charters work. In fact- the largest charter school system operating in NYC has the highest test scores in all of NY State. Why is it the Inions who alwAys stand in the wY of minority kids having the option to improve their opportunities they charters?

Comment by Sue Thursday, Aug 24, 17 @ 2:52 pm
I wasn’t making some broad claim. But if private schools were so inferior to public (the comment I was responding to), you would think hardly any public teacher would pay to send their kids there, outside of religious reasons.

Comment by Robert the 1st Thursday, Aug 24, 17 @ 2:53 pm
Sue,

You understand that in Chicago the opposite is true. That is, unless you count UNO charter as a stellar example of how our tax dollars should be dedicated.

Comment by Ipso Facto Thursday, Aug 24, 17 @ 2:55 pm
==Oswego. - what’s your point other then being a union troll==

Sue, Oswego has been and always will be Orc territory. Enter at your own risk.

Comment by City Zen Thursday, Aug 24, 17 @ 2:55 pm
Robert the 1st,

You realise that such a straw man argument misunderstands the point. And, further, the example you cite is an apples to pears comparison.

Comment by Ipso Facto Thursday, Aug 24, 17 @ 2:57 pm
=Check out the chart on the top of page 3=

Your conclusion is not supported by the chart in question. Public school teachers making more than 84K are much less likely to send their children to private school than other families making more than 84K.

Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Aug 24, 17 @ 2:58 pm
===Oswego has been and always will be Orc territory. Enter at your own risk.===

Oswego is the “Crown Jewel” of Kendall County

It’s our motto that says it all, really…

“Nothing in Illinois happens until Oswego has her say”

This has been true for “decades”.

(Editor’s Note: the term “decades” in quotes is to endure full comedic intent and mocking of the word usage for “time fact” proclamations)

With the Fox River meandering through her rolling hills, Oswego stands majestically, like a beacon of hope, in these Rauner times.

Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Aug 24, 17 @ 3:00 pm
I thought it was an interesting chart, as I knew someone would claim it’s only income based. If I was only trying to make my point I’d point to the chart on page 2.

Comment by Robert the 1st Thursday, Aug 24, 17 @ 3:00 pm
And I never claimed a majority of public teachers opted for private school or even more than the general public. That is true for CTU teachers though.

“The Chicago numbers were startling: 46 percent
of that city’s public school teachers (compared
to 22 percent of Chicagoans in general) sent
their children to private schools.”

This is where the income factor should be considered. Why I pointed to the income chart.

Comment by Robert the 1st Thursday, Aug 24, 17 @ 3:07 pm
It’s an old study too, before someone jumps on that. Just the first .gov one I stumbled upon.

Comment by Robert the 1st Thursday, Aug 24, 17 @ 3:08 pm
Sue – the $ is not the primary criteria for successful schools. Multiple studies across state lines demonstrate charters are no better nor worse the public schools when generally compared. Yes, If you want to take one offs you can find all variety of which is better.

Most of charter school success comes from (1) parents must apply, (2) be accepted, (3) commit to attendance and discipline standards, (4) pay costs of required clothing, (5) expectations of homework assistance and more.

Parent participation is the single greatest factor for success of any student in school. Charters can impose many restrictions and expectations on student and parent that cannot happen with public schools.

Comment by Jim O Thursday, Aug 24, 17 @ 3:12 pm
==Public school teachers making more than 84K are much less likely to send their children to private school than other families making more than 84K.==

That’s not surprising since that includes a much higher end of private sector professions (doctors, lawyers) that would be more inclined towards private education because they have much more disposable income. Plus teachers’ peak earning years are near retirement when children are in college and beyond.

Comment by City Zen Thursday, Aug 24, 17 @ 3:20 pm
–HW- there they go again- the answer is always more money- public schools in inner cities have been dismil failures- Shen charters have been given the opportunity they prove it’s not the students but the public schools which Re the problem. D.C. Until the program was cut off after Union challenges- NYC both have demonstrated that Charters work. In fact- the largest charter school system operating in NYC has the highest test scores in all of NY State. Why is it the Inions who alwAys stand in the wY of minority kids having the option to improve their opportunities they charters?–

Sue, based on your posts like the one above, would you say your school was a success in educating you?

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Aug 24, 17 @ 3:44 pm
Sue: I share your keyboarding shortfalls when I get too excited and rush thru a comment. We can read some decent points in your argument, if we can see how you miss hit some keys.

I often wish we had an edit facility after posting here, but we must settle for review and correction before posting.

Comment by walker Thursday, Aug 24, 17 @ 4:26 pm
While not technically vouchers, scholarship tax credits indeed have the same result, as several others upthread have noted. They were designed as workarounds in states which have a Blaine Amendment or the equivalent, as does Illinois.

To specific points:
@Grand Avenue: the original language allowed up to $1 million per donor, so yes, theoretically 100 (or 75) rich people could entirely fund the program.
@Perrid: the ruling in the recent SCOTUS case was quite narrow, deliberately so: it concerned the repaving of a playground at a private religious school preschool in Missouri) and did not involve tax dollars going to curriculum - this remains to be litigated in some future case.
@Decaf Coffee Party: the original language made families earning up to just under $114,000 eligible for such scholarships - thus they can be used at more elite private schools by middle/upper-middle class families to apply towards much steeper tuition and fees.
@Thomas Paine: students attending public schools will be eligible for the program - they will have the right to abandon their own district and attend schools (presumably, better and richer) in other districts.

While I understand the instinctive attraction (esp. for wealthy tax-averse donors) of such programs, the issues involving accountability and disabled students (raised by ieanea) cannot be addressed - private schools are simply not accountable in the same way public schools are, and disabled students (if admitted at all) are normally required to surrender the right to an IEP - often without their parents clearly understanding what surrendering this right signifies for their child.

This add-on bill, doubtless courtesy of IPI, is straight out of the ALEC playbook. If it passes, there will be celebrations in the U.S. Department of Education, as such programs are dear to the heart of the Sec of Ed.

Comment by dbk Thursday, Aug 24, 17 @ 4:30 pm
Robert the 1st just jumping back in without reading the followup comments. I did skip the article. It appears to suggest 22-23% of Chicagoland teachers send their kids to private schools? I saw that the sample was composed upon urban teachers. In one sense, 2/9 of teachers in Chicago opting out is alarming, and suggests the public schools in Chicago are not serving chidren there sufficiently according to their own teachers’ tastes. That is concern, although I would suggest it points equally to the need to improve those schools for the children who remain in those schools regardless of teachers’ tastes.

In addition, this tells us nothing about the other 2/3’s of Illinois schools and children. For me, this is relevant, because I chose to move to rural Illinois a dozen years ago (I was previously teaching at Millikin in Decatur). I rural Illinois, there are far too few private options to suggest these children will not be left behind by any public investments in private education. There simply are not many private schools beyond the small-cities. Thanks for your reference.

Comment by H-W Thursday, Aug 24, 17 @ 4:59 pm
As God is my witness, I never knew there were rolling hills in Oswego.

Ahem. To the Post, I’m a bit late to the party but wanted to add my two cents to Will Caskey’s and 47’s posts. Our parish (allegedly the “richest” in Springfield) has had several iterations of tuition/parish giving policies. Particularly for non-Catholics or non-parish members, there has been an added tuition increment (the “Y” in Will’s post) for a number of years. Also in the past, there was some back and forth about the split of (tax-deductible) parish giving vs. (mostly non-deductible) tuition. I could be wrong, but I don’t see the $75m cap lasting very long, with the enrollment issues in most private/parochial schools.

Comment by Arthur Andersen Thursday, Aug 24, 17 @ 6:19 pm
===I never knew there were rolling hills in Oswego===

By the river, around “downtown”, heading in and out of town on 34…

To the Post,

The new school funding bill, now that it’s in some sort of form, will some thoughts change? More of an open-ended ask, the theory part is over

Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Aug 24, 17 @ 6:53 pm