Texas bill would truly create school choice, perhaps Nevada should try it

If Gov. Brian Sandoval likes the way they do things in Texas — why else would he propose a business license tax based on gross receipts, a margin tax, just months after the voters rejected the concept at the polls and while Texans are trying to repeal their margin tax? — perhaps he’ll embrace a bill pending before Texas lawmakers to make school choice a practical and financially feasible reality.

At a Dallas elementary school (AP photo via WSJ)

Senate Bill 276 would give any parent who opts to send a child to a private school, any private school, up to 60 percent of what the state would spend to educate that child in a public school — currently about $5,200.

According to the Texas Tribune, the bill would not require private schools to be accredited or follow any curriculum standards. It would be solely the responsibility of parents. Unlike most of Sandoval’s plans the Texas bill would not limit eligibility to low-income families.

The bill states: “A parent or legal guardian of an eligible student who agrees to accept reimbursement in an amount that is less than the state average maintenance and operations expenditures per student may receive reimbursement from the state for the tuition paid for the enrollment of the eligible student at a private school in an amount that is the lesser of: (1) the tuition paid; or (2) 60 percent of the state average maintenance and operations expenditures per student.”

The writers of a Wall Street Journal op-ed observed: “This year, lawmakers should seize the opportunity to leapfrog other states by enacting universal educational freedom, putting Texas in a position of leadership. Texas is a bellwether — it is, as the saying goes, where the future comes to be born. If it can succeed in giving all parents the freedom to choose what’s best for their children, then reformers may be able to do the same elsewhere.”

Like Nevada?


23 comments on “Texas bill would truly create school choice, perhaps Nevada should try it

  1. nyp says:

    I think it is a great idea. Under this legislation your tax dollars and mine would go to support madrassas, Nation of Islam day schools, schools teaching exclusively in Spanish, schools that don’t believe in having students recite the Pledge of Allegiance, etc.
    Sounds great!

  2. Winston Smith says:

    My tax dollars already go to collectivist public schools, taught by teachers beholden to the socialistic NEA.

    Probably couldn’t get too much worse…

  3. nyp says:

    “collectivist public schools”

  4. Winston Smith says:

    “socialistic NEA”

  5. It is not your tax dollars.

  6. Steve says:

    Truth exposed, Nyp does not believe in freedom of choice.

  7. Nyp says:

    It certainly is our tax dollars that you propose spending on The Louis Farrakhan Learning Academy.

    Should work out brilliantly.

  8. Barbara says:

    If this bill passes, it would truly enhance public education in Texas and lead the way for meaningful reform of failing public schools everywhere. Since the State is still keeping 40 percent, how could they complain? They don’t have the expense of the kid, but they still get 40 percent of the funds to spend on other kids. Public schools always think the solution to poor performance is more money.

    The Federal Department of Education should be closed and the savings be left at the local level to fully fund private schools. I bet teachers salaries would rise along with test scores and there would be money left over to boot.

  9. Barbara says:

    No, Nyp just thinks he knows what is better for children than their parents.

  10. nyp says:

    Nope, I think it is a great idea to take Barbara’s tax dollars and use that money to subsidize Islamic academies.

  11. Steve says:

    Nyp is an Islamophobe!
    Never would’a guessed!

  12. nyp says:

    I also think it would be great if our taxes went straight into government subsidies for those schools where immigrant children aren’t forced to learn English and where they are indoctrinated into La Reconquista.

    After all, that is what Mr. Mitchell and Barbara are advocating.

  13. Barbara says:

    My daughter attended a secular private school, pre-school through 8th grade, with many Muslim children even though there is an Islamic Academy in Las Vegas. Parents will spend the money at the best schools that they perceive deliver the best value. Those schools, even religious oriented, that do not perform will not remain in business.

  14. Steve says:

    Par for the course.
    Nyp “interprets” his way to a created argument….there is a name for that and I think it was a character in the Wizard of Oz….

  15. nyp says:

    Kudos for Barbara for recognizing that Mr. Mitchell’s proposal is to mandate government funding for the the Hugo Chavez Learning Center and the Al Sharpton Day School and Community Organizing Center.

    Let the market decide! After all, the upbringing of children is all about market forces, isn’t it?

  16. Barbara says:

    If letting people keep more of their money and deciding how it is to be spent is a government mandate, I’m all for it. How about a government mandate returning all my payroll taxes so I can decide where I want to invest and spend?

  17. So, all money is the property of the state, and any money they let you keep is still tax money that you may spend only as the state allows.

  18. Barbara says:

    Yes, NYP believes your entire output belongs to the government and only they know how to spend it wisely. I’m sure there are numerous government programs he could point to as being widely successful such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Disability, our current public education system, student loan program, postal service…Oops, it seems all these programs are broke and in need of millions and billions of cash.

  19. nyp says:

    Actually, Barbara, all those programs are vital to the well-being of our nation, and have been tremendously successful. Anyone wondering what modern American conservatism is all about simply needs to look at Barbara’s list of institutions she believes are no good and should be abolished: our public schools, our student loan programs, our aid to disabled persons, Social Security, Medicare, etc.

  20. nyp says:

    Why do you folks keep talking about “the government keeping our money” or “the government deciding what money I keep.” This isn’t a dictatorship. The government is us. We elect representatives who follow our wishes in determining whether or not to have public schools, Medicare, college loans, public roads, adequate police forces, federal aircraft inspectors, prison guards, and all the other things that Barbara and Mr. Mitchell so disdain and wish to do away with.
    The decision to have a payroll tax to pay for medical insurance for old people — who could never obtain health insurance on their own — is a decision of We the People. If Barbara doesn’t like the decision to have Medicare and schools for second-graders, she should work to elect people who agree with her.

  21. nyp says:

    Still, this has been very illuminating. No one has disputed that the legislation supported by Mr. Mitchell and by Barbara would allow schools teaching Latino separation, Islamic Wahhabism, black nationalism, radical multiculturalism, etc., to receive government subsidies, paid for by you and me. Barbara and Mr. Mitchell are OK with that. If you disagree with their position, you might wish to think about whether you belong in the same ideological camp as these representative conservatives.

  22. Barbara says:

    What makes you believe these things are not being taught in our schools now? The Supremes just agreed to hear a case where the teen was sent home for wearing a T-shirt with an American flag to school on Cinco De Mayo day. I don’t see the schools pushing assimilation at all.

    The bankrupt programs are well meaning, but still bankrupt. There are much better, solvent ways to achieve the same objectives.

    And as far as us not living in a dictatorship, what do you call a President that decides he has the authority to make laws because the legislative branch refuses to act? Our Constitutional Republic is founded on separation of powers. Obama has taken on both the legislative and executive roles and seeks to take even more power. Suppose the next President decides that he will grant “amnesty from taxes” to all corporations because it will spur job growth. Congress hasn’t repealed the corporate tax, but he just decides it is “best” and “fair”. He directs the IRS to not pursue the collection of corporate taxes, but to concentrate on individual tax returns. Obama set the precedent. I guess you would be okay with that?

  23. nyp says:

    wow, for a moment there you actually had me thinking that you believed all that stuff.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s