School choice bill could be ‘detrimental’ to funding public education

After a challenging year of remote learning and socially distanced instruction, the governor’s proposed “school choice” bill that provides taxpayer-funded vouchers for parents who wish to open enroll their students to a charter school or private school feels like “a slap in the face” to Iowa’s public educators, Newton Superintendent Tom Messinger told local legislators during a virtual listening post last weekend.

“I feel that there would never be a good time, in my opinion, to bring up the voucher system. But this year, I know from what I hear, a lot of people […] in public education are taking this really, really hard this year, and kind of as a slap in the face because they’ve worked so much harder than they have any other year,” Messinger said. “Being a teacher is difficult anyway, but now it’s even more difficult.”

On Monday, Jan. 25, the Iowa Legislature looked over the governor’s 65-page bill that statehouse journalists Rod Boshart and Erin Murphy say “establishes state funding for students in struggling public schools who wish to attend a private school, creates a charter school program and allows students to transfer out of schools with a voluntary or court-ordered diversity plan.”

Much of what concerns Messinger about the bill is that private schools are essentially given state dollars but are not held to the same standards as public schools on how and where to spend those funds. The voucher system could also cost the state more than $50 million if every eligible student participates.

“I just think that this is something that really is detrimental to public education,” Messinger said.

IASB opposes SSB 1065

Lawmakers in the Iowa Senate Education Committee passed along Senate Study Bill 1065, as well as Senate Study Bill 1064 which would require districts to offer full in-person instruction. SSB 1065 passed in a close 8-7 vote. The Iowa Association of School Boards says the vouchers — or Student First Scholarships — are an inappropriate use of public tax dollars.

Even though IASB agrees parents should have the choice to enroll their child in a private or religious school, the organization dislikes the proposal giving selected parents “a taxpayer-funded debit card loaded with state taxpayer dollars to use however they wish.” It’s also “a slippery slope toward a costly and expansive voucher program,” IASB said.

IASB also criticized lawmakers wanting to establish charter school programs, claiming the state already provides the opportunity for local schools to do such a thing within a district’s boundaries. “We don’t need to allow out-of-state, for-profit companies to use Iowa taxpayer dollars,” IASB said in its testimony to Iowa legislators.

Reynolds alluded to new legislation in her state address

Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds said in her state address that what teachers and administrators did during the pandemic this past year “was nothing short of amazing,” highlighting the extra measures faculty took to ensure students would be able to participate in remote and hybrid learning models.

Reynolds also shared the frustrations felt by teachers, students and families; most of which pointed out the downsides of remote learning, a model that for many school districts was only temporary and was primarily caused by the pandemic. This led to some parents enrolling their kids in private school.

“But not everyone had that option,” Reynolds said in her address. “Many parents can’t afford private school. And because some of our larger districts prohibit open enrollment, they won’t let you transfer to another public school … School choice shouldn’t be limited to those who have the financial means or are lucky to live in a district that’s confident enough to allow open enrollment.”

Rural schools will be impacted by the legislation, too

Iowa House Rep. Sharon Steckman, D-Mason City — who accompanied Rep. Wes Breckenridge, D-Newton, in the virtual listening post — said the bill “is undermining public education” and encouraged people to contact their legislators in support of it. Steckman, a former teacher, said the piece of legislation could hurt rural schools “way more” than urban districts.

“Rural schools don’t always have a private school in their area,” Steckman said. “They don’t always have that access, so they’ll lose the funds and not have private school. Double whammy.”

Dr. Michelle Havenstrite, superintendent of the Prairie City-Monroe Community School District, told Newton News that she agrees the bill will not only hurt rural school districts, but also the communities and patrons they serve. It is important that legislators understand not only the negative impact the bill will have on schools, she said, but the potential negative impact on rural communities across the state.

“In all my years as a rural school educator, I have never seen a thriving rural community without a strong, thriving school system and, on the flip, I have never seen a strong thriving school district in a community that is not progressing,” Havenstrite said.

Public funds, Havenstrite continued, should be used to support public community schools that are open to all students regardless of race, religion, gender, socio-economic status and disability. The PCM superintendent said taxpayer dollars, however, should not be used “for a new entitlement program for parents who choose private education without exception.”

Furthermore, the idea of “school choice” for parents has been in place in Iowa for many years, Havenstrite added.

“This is called … open enrollment.”

Contact Christopher Braunschweig at 641-792-3121 ext. 6560 or cbraunschweig@newtondailynews.com