A recent Associated School Boards of South Dakota (ASBSD) newsletter had an ironic typo in the sentence where they warned readers about the possible push for school vouchers in the upcoming legislative session. They omitted the word “not.” The relevant sentence should read:
In that same ABSD newsletter their readers were admonished to “be aware of their overall academic performance and the areas needing the most improvement and to go to work on plans to make progress toward improvement.” Imagine what ACTUAL vouchers would do if just the POSSIBILITY of voucher legislation causes this reaction.
Failing schools would need to focus on OUTCOMES and compete to retain students—not just “have a plan.”
ASBSD, this is a pathetic and cynical strategy to defeat legislation that could help kids trapped in your failing schools.
Article VIII. Section 1 of our state Constitution promises an education to the children of South Dakota - it does NOT promise the children of South Dakota to the Department of Education or to their local school district. The state has failed/is failing generations of children. There was superior education before there was 'public education' (a socialist ideal), which, under current circumstances, is a misnomer.
I would settle for a tax refund for the percentage of my taxes that go to public schools. I don't need government money, but I'd like to stop paying for a service I don't use.
Be careful what you wish for. Any time you put money in the government's hand, it becomes leverage. What you would consider a "refund", the state views as a "subsidy", giving them authority over what you can do with the money. A tax credit, where the money never greases a government palm - would be better, since you are given credit for money you have spent on a child's education. That tax credit could be extended to ANY taxpayer (grandparent; neighbor; philanthropist; etc.) who would rather fund a private or homeschool education, whether they had children themselves or not. (Thinking out of the box.)
Yes! Parents need to start taking note of legislators willing to engage in the fight for better education & parents’ rights in SD.
In that same ABSD newsletter their readers were admonished to “be aware of their overall academic performance and the areas needing the most improvement and to go to work on plans to make progress toward improvement.” Imagine what ACTUAL vouchers would do if just the POSSIBILITY of voucher legislation causes this reaction.
Failing schools would need to focus on OUTCOMES and compete to retain students—not just “have a plan.”
ASBSD, this is a pathetic and cynical strategy to defeat legislation that could help kids trapped in your failing schools.
Public schools are best. As a taxpayer I don’t want to fund any kind of religious education. Nor homeschooling.
Article VIII. Section 1 of our state Constitution promises an education to the children of South Dakota - it does NOT promise the children of South Dakota to the Department of Education or to their local school district. The state has failed/is failing generations of children. There was superior education before there was 'public education' (a socialist ideal), which, under current circumstances, is a misnomer.
Are these folks advocating for a Theocracy, because it sure seems that way.
I would settle for a tax refund for the percentage of my taxes that go to public schools. I don't need government money, but I'd like to stop paying for a service I don't use.
Be careful what you wish for. Any time you put money in the government's hand, it becomes leverage. What you would consider a "refund", the state views as a "subsidy", giving them authority over what you can do with the money. A tax credit, where the money never greases a government palm - would be better, since you are given credit for money you have spent on a child's education. That tax credit could be extended to ANY taxpayer (grandparent; neighbor; philanthropist; etc.) who would rather fund a private or homeschool education, whether they had children themselves or not. (Thinking out of the box.)
I think we're saying the same basic thing, I probably just used the wrong terms