CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
March 18, 2011 01:02 AM UTC
32 Comments
I’m not sure I see the wolves metaphor, but it’s insane.
One DCSD Board member described it as $500,000 of “profit” to the district. Huh? It’s tax revenue – the district does not get profit.
But here’s the part that makes no sense. At all.
Even if you think vouchers provide additional choice, and that additional choice is good and that we should all pay for it, and that DCSD students need that choice and need it to be paid for by all Colorado taxpayers… even if…
The state per puil funding portion is determined from the student census on some magic date in October.
If the students aren’t there, the ppf doesn’t come from the state. And if they are not enrolled, they certain;y won’t be there – they’ll be at the
madrasaprivate school they chose instead of being there. How does tat result in any funding from the state? It doesn’t.DCSD sold this concept to their community by attempting to structure the scheme so that 75% of the state ppf would go to the parents with the district retaining the other 25%. My math is a a bit shakey, so you should definitely double check – but I think 75% of zero is approximately zero.
http://www.cde.state.co.us/cde…
authorizes districts to set up voucher programs but has never been used that would make state funding available.
Interestingly, however, Douglas County does not propose to use any of its local money on this plan. Only other’s people’s money.
Seems Colorado has something called the Blaine Amendment that bans state aid to sectarian schools. It was apparently added at a time when feeling was running high against Catholic immigrants and was directed against the possibility of tax dollars going to Catholic schools.
While the Supreme Court has upheld allowing voucher programs using public money for religious schools, this state law might come in handy for those wishing to sue over having their tax dollars being handed over to religious schools and for all those who oppose this tax payer subsidy for affluent religious righties.
It gives small hope that maybe 135 years from now the xenophobia manifest in so much of today’s GOP anti-pigmented-skin agenda might find itself possibly serving even one useful purpose . . . nah, just wishful thinking.
If so- there goes my biz plan for a new school in Castle Rock – the Science and Technology Msdrasa
No sectarian schools period.
which go to students at sectarian schools and have been upheld in their current form as a constitutional provide a precedent for this program.
The theory, I believe, is that aid to the student is not constitutionally equivalent to aid to the institution.
Any plan that secures full per child reimbursement from the state for voucher students and pays less than that in the voucher leaves them with more money per child who remains in the system and provides benefit to more people in the district.
The question is whether the State of Colorado should allow its limited education funds to be spent in this way.
If Doug Co Schools want to use their property taxes to pay for vouchers in their district, so be it, but using vouchers to get a bigger share of the state pie seems inappropriate.
(or at least the ones who showed up to a particular board meeting) are willing to disrespect a key section of the US Constitution (the separation of church and state) doesn’t make it legal or ethical, ohwilleke. The rest of the taxpayers who live there who believe the Constitution should be followed should not have their rights trampled on by those who voted for it. (Regardless of how the money works out.
Taxpayers should not have to pay for private schools to teach religious dogma. If they want to teach that stuff to their kids — great. Let them pay for it.
courts at many levels have determined it’s not necessarily a church/state issue.
were equal to white men for a lot of years, too, MADCO. It doesn’t mean they weren’t wrong.
You make a good point.
although there is a fair argument that they simply level the playing field between public school attendees and those who attend religious schools. Indeed, in Canada, they interpret separation of church and state to require vouchers for sectarian schools. Similar programs have been held to be constitutional under the U.S. Constitution, and similar programs at the higher ed level that allow vouchers for in state religious schools have been held to be constitutional under the state constitution.
Constitutionality aside, I can’t say that a school board trying to maximize the funds available for their district relative to other districts by a bit is terribly unethical. It isn’t conceptually or morally different in that regard from chasing after scarce grant money.
It is unfair for the state to give affluent Douglas County a better deal than any other district in the state – but is the state that is acting unfairly in setting the rules, not Doug Co that is acting unethically by trying to get money $$. Also, any plan for more spending in tight financial circumstances is questionable.
“Taxpayers should not have to pay for private schools to teach religious dogma.”
Certainly. The question is what is an appropriate way to do the accounting between secular education support and religious instruction support. The vouchers are for less than the cost of a public school education, so there is a fair argument that this isn’t happening. There is more than one way to look at it as subsidizing or not subsidizing the teaching of religious dogma.
I’m an atheist.
with science rather than religious dogma, they should be entitled to 65% of the amount secular schools get? Is that what you are saying?
I’m not an atheist. I am a person of faith. I just love my Constitution and think that the separation of church and state is one of the best parts of it. I don’t want my tax money going to someone else’s faith (or even my own).
You said it. He asked the rhetorical question of how to do it.
Yours is one answer.
Personally, any school receiving public voucher money should be required to show accountability for that money. That means:
1) The school adheres to teacher qualification standards.
2) The school adheres to state curriculum requirements. (That includes science and history.)
3) The school administers all state required tests and makes the same reports that public schools make – at least for its voucher recipients.
4) The school should not receive more money from the voucher student than it would receive in normal tuition.
Additionally to my mind – and mostly missing from this program – there should be a diversity of private schools available to the students.
Sadly, I think getting them into legislation will not be easy.
tax payers being forced to support religious schools I’m also very disturbed by the fact that the voucher won’t come close to covering the cost of most available slots in most private schools and therefore mainly acts as nice discount coupon for the affluent with very few places within reach of middle to low income families.
It’s a double whammy: Forcing tax payers to subsidize religious education and forcing them to subsidize another perk for the those at the top of the income scale who already receive the lion’s share of the benefit of the Bush tax breaks, still in force.
I commented in the first thread about this with a list of private schools in town. The cheapest was about $9K (not including any special expenses), the average being $13-15k.
To me it looks like a group of people are getting what they’ve always wanted; a partial opt-out of a taxpayer funded program they don’t (feel they) use. (If you already send your kid to private school, you’re not getting an incentive, you’re getting a refund.) Well great. I’d like a refund on all my cash that goes for roads. I can’t drive. Where the hell is my voucher?
Those already in private school aren’t eligible. Have to be in Douglas CO school for a year to qualify for voucher. Don’t know if that is just or the first year or a permanent requirement. But still unfair perk mainly for those who least need subsidies.
But here’s where th eplan seems …. impossible.
Oct 1 2010 was a Friday.
So the 2010-2011 “per pupil funding” was based on students in school Oct 2010. The 2011PPF will be based on kids in school Oct 2011. Except the vouchered kids will be at their private
madrasaschool of choice. So the state PPF contribution to DCSD will go down by as many as 500 kids.Is DCSD thinking about a time shift, where they can issue the voucher now for 2011-2012 and then use funds from 2012/2013 ppf? Or what?
I’ve asked- but because I don’t ilve in DCSD all I got was ” we’re still working out the details” which means they either don’t know either or they are not telling. Both are irresponsible. One may not even be legal.
A majority of the people who showed up for the board meetings were opposed to vouchers, but the board approved them anyway.
And God help anybody who tried to publicize their opposition. The local DC newspapers virtually ignored the entire process and, as far as I know, refused to print a single letter to the editor that expressed opposition.
This was an inside job, all the way, and you can thank the Jon Caldera brain trust at the Independence Institute that helped run it.
but it is a huge collective action probably. They are attempting to rip off the state and all state taxpayers. If this goes through, every single school district would have incentive to do this, and suddenly the state would be on the hook for millions and millions more dollars. This would certainly cut funding for public schools.
n/t
and deserved to be front paged.
As a mom of three kids, this education issue is a hot button topic for me. I’m glad to be seeing so much support for public schools on Pols.
But apparently all those who took the time to read and comment didn’t think so.
I confess.