In his lightning-round second special session, completed last week in the bare-minimum five days, Gov. Bobby Jindal claims the Legislature gave him everything he wanted. Actually, he got more than he asked for in one important area, almost more than he could afford.
The surprise item in his call for the recent session, dominated by surplus spending and business tax cuts, was a proposal to allow parents of private and parochial school students to deduct half of the tuition from their state income taxes, up to a $5,000 deduction per child. The same plan passed last year in a bill by Sen. Rob Marionneaux, D-Livonia, but then-Gov. Kathleen Blanco, a former public schoolteacher, spiked it with her veto pen.
Jindal resurrected the proposal this year as a way of partially balancing his business tax cuts by throwing a bone to people. But not all the people, which turned out to be trouble.
Team Jindal quickly realized that the greatest challenge for his plan would come not from teacher groups and school boards who opposed the bill but from legislators who wanted in on it for their constituents with children in public schools.
The private-school tax break, a maximum $300 savings for a family paying $10,000 in tuition, addresses neither failing public schools nor does much to lighten the financial burden of families trying to escape them. Signing the bill scores points for Jindal in social-conservative circles nationwide, and cheaply too, costing only $20 million a year.
Both supporters and critics consider the deduction a back-door approach to private education vouchers. By its modest size, it's more like a foot in the back door.
Yet legislators, nervous about leaving out the majority of their constituents, sought to improve the bill (or kill it) by bloating it. The administration had to scramble when Sen. Ben Nevers, D-Bogalusa, attached an amendment to extend the deduction to public school parents for school and band uniforms and all manner of supplies, including computers. In pressing for his amendment, Sen. Nevers also vented some steam about the governor not at least mentioning his so-called major education initiative beforehand to the chairman of the Senate Education Committee, who would be Nevers.
With a $60 milllion pricetag, Nevers' addition would have broken the bank on the bill and perhaps caused Jindal to scuttle it. It did not come to that, however, thanks to Nevers accepting a compromise to limit the public-school deduction to uniforms at an extra cost of only $3 million.
The small victory for public school supporters nonetheless sets an important precedent of no parent-left-behind. Having public-school parents along for the ride will greatly limit how much future legislatures can afford to increase the private-school deduction.
Best it grow no more. That is not the case for another voucher-lite plan the governor will advance in the regular session. His executive budget includes $10 million for "scholarships" for students to move from failing public schools in New Orleans to private and parochial schools.
While it would touch only 1,200 or so students in only one parish, the scholarship plan could make a profound impact on a limited number of children where it is needed most, as opposed to, with the tax deduction, a minimal savings for all and an educational benefit for none.
The scholarship program is part of a multi-prong attack to address beleaguered New Orleans schools that were failing before they were recovering. One down side is that allowing the most promising students a way out of public schools will keep those schools from improving their overall performance. But if getting a real education can fundamentally improve the prospects of 1,000 or 2,000 or 3,000 children per year, the whole community benefits. And other communities could too, dollars permitting, since New Orleans hasn't a monopoly on failing schools.
Now that the governor and Legislature, with the tuition tax break, have put a foot in that back door to vouchers, they should open it wider with scholarships for those who need it most.
I agree that creationism is simple and silly minded (IMHO). Yes I believe in separation of church and state (very much so). While it is true many students' parents send their children to private schools because of desired religious instruction or to keep them from going to majority black schools, the concept of "measure then pass or fail" is THE reason private education provides their students with greater learning. In order to have a successful enterprise (even baking a pie) the necessary step must be to have failure (such as not using rotten apples in your pie). Athletics, pie making or education, one must have both success and failure to provide a good product. What makes public education a poor comparison to private education are: passing students to a higher grade without mastering what they should have learned and keeping teachers regardless of how poorly they do their job. I know in my own case fear of repeating a grade was the prime motivator that forced me to learn the material presented in class. Students who are self motivated can and do learn in public schools, but I think most students have to be forced to learn. Perhaps I'm wrong. Written by kpf
on 3/24/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
big brother, I think you're on to something in the sense that early education is more critical than late. That's no reason to abandon our public schools who will educate every child, not just the select few. I do take issue with one of your points - when I think "rural" and "private school" the last things that come to mind are "quality education" and a "broader cross-section of the community." No, the thing that comes to mind are all these majority-white "Christian" (Segregated) "Academies" where they don't teach "Evil-ution" - that's what comes to my mind. TW Written by Tee Dub
on 3/21/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Oh, Mr. Dub, I, too am a graduate of a Louisiana public high school. Early 70's. But I went to a parochial school through the 8th grade, and the foundations that I received from that early education exceeded the demands of public high school and LSU, especially in the basics of reading, writing, and arithmetic. Written by big brother
on 3/20/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
In cities, the selectivity of private schools and the parental support and other benefits can explain a lot of the difference in student performance. But in rural areas, for instance, private schools have a much broader admissions policy and a much broader cross-section of income and social classes. Those schools often have miniscule budgets, lower paid teachers, low-tech campuses. But they still outperform the better funded public schools in those areas. Certainly, we need successful public schools and all of our futures are dependent on effective public education. But government is inefficient, unions are not created to help students, and political correctness prevents schools from using effective discipline and other practices that help private schools succeed. Public educators need to admit their problems, commit to fixing them, instead of just complaining about their lack of resources. I believe that a majority of citizens will support higher funding for public education if they make those admissions and lay out an honest plan for turning things around. Written by big brother
on 3/20/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
As a graduate of a Louisiana public high school, I resent this notion that private schools are better than public schools, no matter what. I said it before, and I'll say it again, private schools get to cherry-pick their students - is it any wonder that on average their students do better? An educated populace is absolutely critical to a functioning democracy, as well as being crucial for the economic health of our state. Prisons are chock-full of illiterate people. One of the biggest problems we have in this country is that too many people refuse to increase funding for public schools - a lot of them for racist reasons. And don't give me the clap-trap about how there is adequate funding, but it's lost through graft and teachers' unions, etc., etc. Let's compare funding for schools in Western Europe with what we do, and then we can talk. TW Written by Tee Dub
on 3/20/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
I think government is already regulating $23,000,000 worth of private school activities. And how much money would it take to bring public schools up to the level of private schools? I don't think they could do it with 2 billion dollars. Written by big brother
on 3/20/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Big Brother: no, that is not what I said. There is no difference between the government paying for tuition (in part) at a non-public school and the government giving you a tax break to cover your tuition (in part) at a non-public school. It is appples and oranges compared to claiming an exemption for your wife and kids. So if the government is going to fund "non-public" education like it would fund "public" education, and it regulates education that is "public" then it should also regulate education that is "non-public". Other examples are not applicable, they do not compare. Written by Dan
on 3/20/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Based on many of Dan's earlier posts, I think that's exactly what he wants. Written by Professor
on 3/20/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
You labor, the government takes some of your earnings THEREFORE they have control over any enterprise where they use a portion of this money. Government as Bo Peep, taking care of all her little sheep. Written by kpf
on 3/20/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Good point, big brother. A citizen's money does not become "tax dollars" until it is confiscated by the government. An exemption prevents the government from converting your money into tax dollars in the first place. So technically, an exemption cannot legitimately be described as spending tax dollars on private education. -- And, according to Dan's logic, if every exemption means that the subject of the exemption must "regulated completely by the government", then persons over 65, the blind, charites, medical providers, mentally handicapped, etc. would have to be under complete government regulation. Written by rougeneck
on 3/20/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Yeah, Dan. And if you claim your spouse and children on income tax and take the tax break that comes with that, then your family should be regulated by the government, too. Let the state make decisions for them, too. Written by big brother
on 3/20/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Simple solution: If you think that people should be able to use tax dollars to attend non-public schools then non-public schools get to be regulated completely by the government. If you don't want government involved in making decisions for non-public schools, then leave the government funding out of it. Written by Dan
on 3/19/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
I think that your latest posts are on track. The private school tax refund has no direct impact on public school funding. Anyone who makes that link is misinformed or not being honest. It's a complicated process thanks to our wonderful political system, but basically, the legislature allocates a certain budget to public education. Then a formula divides that money between the various school systems in the state. And in a 30 billion dollar budget, the 23 million is less than 1/10 of 1 percent of the state budget. I dare any legislator or teacher union official to prove that this miniscule percentage affected their piece of the pie. Written by bean counter
on 3/19/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
So, depending on whatever is your pet publicly financed cause, you can always say that every dollar left in a taxpayer's pocket, and every tax dollar spent on any other program is a dollar taken from your cause, right?? Written by rougeneck
on 3/19/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Actually, it's not quite that simple. It is true that this bill reduces the amount of money going into the state fund. However, and I don't know if this is the case with education (out of my realm of expertise), many state programs are funded by a set formula year-to-year. So, the state may only get $999 million this year instead of $1 billion that they got last year. The formula will still mandate that $200 million goes to public schools, so they see no reduction. However, logic holds that any program which does not have guaranteed money may see a reduction. For instance, if the highway LA1 is due for some repairs, and it's way down on the list of unguaranteed funds, then the funds may run out before it gets funded. In that case, you could say, "These vouchers prevented LA1 from being repaired." It'd be a stretch, logically, but you could make a case for it. Written by Professor
on 3/19/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
The government taking taxpayers' money and then reimbursing some of it to those taxpayers who send their children to private schools takes money from public schools in the same way as when an elected official proposes giving a tax refund to those who pay taxes but not giving this taxpayer money to those who do not pay taxes is promoting "tax breaks for the rich." Surely you see that. Written by kpf
on 3/19/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
One question please, and this is an honest one, not one that I already know the answer to. -- Can anyone tell me if the tax break for private school students that was recently passed actually takes money directly out of public school budgets? I cannot find any language in the House Bill 7 stating that the revenue reduction would taken from budgets of public schooling. Maybe someone who understands tax laws can document that this tax cut has a direct effect on public schools, but I don't think it does.
If I am correct, then the argument about this bill taking money from public schools is in error or an outright lie. It reminds me of LSU President Lombardi's opposition to funding road projects, because it left less in the pot for them to fight over. If you want to use the argument that any tax cut hurts public education, then please feel free to donate all of your income to the state for the good of public education.
I look forward to any additional information on the direct impacts of this tax. Written by rougeneck
on 3/19/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Public schools do compete well with private schools - VERY WELL IN FACT - in sports. Public school sports teams DO NOT accept everyone - if they did their teams would not win often, if ever (in other words, they'd suck). Surely as a researcher you realize that eliminating "what isn't" "the answer" is very useful to finding what "the answer" is. Likewise - just as a coach eliminates those who are the least able to perform and only keep the best - so too schools MUST be allowed to fail so that only the best remain and are funded. Parental choice is the way to go, as "wake up, people" mentioned. Notice this is true pure "choice" - or as I would refer to it true capitalism unfettered by government interference. If public schools were faced with failure - like an athlete trying out for a team -they would have to perform as well or better than other public schools or the consumer (aka "parents" who love their children and want the best for them) would shut them down by not sending their kids there. “Competition” is not a dirty word - it is a measure of performance. If performance means nothing to you, then what's wrong with George W. Bush becoming dictator for life - or do you prefer his "competition?" Written by kpf
on 3/19/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Yep, I dream of a day where certain New Orleanians will not be so ignorant as not to know the difference between "then" and "than" - a fella can dream. And how are those vouchers going to work for the poor? Full tuition? Is that what the state is prepared to do? It's not? Then what happens to the voucher? What's it worth then? And what about the fact that private schools can turn down students? What happens to them? You call me dumb but you can't think yourself out of a sack, much less a box. What an idiot. TW Written by Tee Dub
on 3/19/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
It is too bad Tee Dum and others like him are more concerned about saving their precious public school system then they are about giving everyone, including the poor, the best education possible. The public school models of the past have failed miserably. It is time to think outside of the box and that means thinking outside of The System. Tax deductions, credits, and vouchers for low income families are the future. Written by NolaBoy
on 3/19/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Oy. Look y'all - that's why we have taxes, because left to their own devices, people wouldn't give squat to anyone else, most of them would do like the "Professor" and take care of their own. You have to force them to do it. "Professor" - not funding public schools, or reducing money available for public schools, via vouchers, etc., leads to even poorer schools, which leads to poor learning environment, which leads to crime. Kerry, what do athletics have to do with anything? I don't get the analogy, if that's what it is - and what, exactly, do you mean by this?: "Those who cannot perform well enough athletically in public school do not get "equal treatment" with those who can." Huh? Please elaborate. And how the last poster managed to bring abortion into this debate is beyond me. Cripes what a tool. Enough with this "competition" crap. You CANNOT have "competition" between public and private schools when the cards are stacked against the public schools - they HAVE TO take the problem kids - dear Christ, we want them educated, do we not? Apples and oranges, y'all - apples and oranges. TW P.S. Priez nous dire, cher professeur, when have you EVER worn a PC hat? Written by Tee Dub
on 3/19/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Two of the strongest arguments for choice in education have already made it into this blog. Just as the gentleman wants the best for his kids, so does everyone else. If you give parents a choice, they will line up for better schools. When they open enrollment to magnet schools, low-income, minority parents line up for days to get their kids into those schools.
The other is that, despite entreaties about "leaving poorer, lesser kids behind", the fact is that saving the life of 10 kids or 10,000 kids out of 100,000 is worth doing, versus resigning ALL of them to the same failed fate as the rest. (The status quo's efforts to keep things FAIR just keeps everyone DOWN.) And if parents see a better education for their kids by meeting higher standards, most will push their kids to those standards. Now they have little incentive to.
Look what happened when LSU raised it's entrance requirements. Enrollments went UP, because more people want to be at a BETTER school and, knowing the high standards, they are forced to work that much harder in high school to get accepted.
Public education should be handled like almost everything else - give the money to the parents and let them spend it wherever they like, as long as it is an accredited school (although no more than one or two NOPS shools could meet that standard now.) If a parent takes that money and goes to a neighborhood school because they lack transportation to do otherwise or just want to stay close to home, they aren't any worse off than before. In fact, they'll probably get more attention if the enrollment goes down. If a parent chooses to chip in and send their child to a parochial school, the government did nothing to support that religion since it is the individual's decision where they want to go. The separation of church and state happens when the government cuts the check to the citizen, no matter what religion they are. If you ask me, public schools are tremendously hampered by the requirements to accommodate every child, no matter what condition or infirmity or behavior issues that exist (not to mention transportation - the bane of public systems), but every school would be better off if they could enforce higher standards of behavior and scholarship. Without a choice, there's no way. Funny how the same people who are "pro-choise" when it comes to abortion are so against choice when it comes to education. The opposition to school choice has NOTHING to do with the kids, believe me. Written by wake up, people
on 3/19/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Tee Dub - I'm going to take off my PC hat for a second, because when it comes to family, they come before PC. So, you make the point that private schools can and do deny entry to trouble makers. Wonderful! I don't want my kids around them anyway. And, since I don't want my kids around them, I also don't really want to pay for them to go to another school. Now, I realize the overarching principle of public schoools is to educate all of society, for the betterment of society. Therefore, I'm not an advocate of "none of my money goes to public schools". However, I am an advocate of a majority of my money stays in my family, and doesn't wind up in a failed public school. So, when it comes to my kids, I am unabashedly saying, "Keep those kids away from my kids. If I have to pay extra money and pull strings to have it that way, I'll do it." I'm just going to make sure that my kids have the absolute best chance at life that they can have. If anyone else wants to give their kids the same chance, great - but my kids come first. If I have anything left over, I'll help them. Written by Professor
on 3/19/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Public schools do quite well when competing against private schools athletically. I think the secret is "if you are unable to meet the standard, you do not make the team." Those who cannot perform well enough athletically in public school do not get "equal treatment" with those who can. I am not advocating "throw them into the gutter" mind you, but there is no reason to not have advanced classes for those who show the ability to excel, or for that matter a totally separate vocational path for those who cannot perform well enough academically. Written by kpf
on 3/19/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Dear Kerry and "Professor," as someone who is making decisions about kindergarten next year (both parochial and public), let me just say this about the "success" of private schools that I am now witnessing "first-hand". Private schools cherry-pick their students - they are not required to take kids who are behavior problems, or who are "slow" (can we still say that in this p.c. environment?). So to compare public and private schools is truly a case of comparing apples and oranges. Teachers are in unions because as a job that was traditionally female, they are woefully underpaid. If we paid teachers more, we would attract better applicants, and perhaps they wouldn't have to organize. I don't blame teachers for unionizing. Back in my community college instructor days, I signed the petition to bring AFT to my institution. You're not going to get anything from the bean counters in the administration without it. TW Written by Tee Dub
on 3/19/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
kpf - I could not agree more. In fact, I'll leave it at that. Written by Professor
on 3/19/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Public schools will never improve because of victories in the legislature, including how much funding they receive, pupil-teacher ratio or any of the "fixes" proponents have claimed will improve public education. Sports teams - which compete head-to-head - modify the way they do things based on measurable results (that is, they adopt the methods of the teams that beat them). Head-to-head comparisons of private vs. public schools should convince those who control public education to mimic how private schools provide an education. Job security for members of the teachers' unions and new age self-esteem fads will only ensure public education remains a poor choice for an education except for only the most dedicated of students. Written by kpf
on 3/19/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
