One of the few things of value to be ground up and spat out by our Nevada legislative sausage factory this year was the education saving accounts (ESA) law created by Senate Bill 302.
Gov. Brian Sandoval quickly signed the bill into law.
SB302 sets up savings accounts for parents who choose to take their children out of public schools. For most the annual account will be equal to 90 percent of the public school per-pupil state funding allotment or a little more than $5,000. Parents earning less than 185 percent of the federal poverty level would get 100 percent of state funding.
It passed the Legislature with party line votes on both sides of the building — Republicans favoring and Democrats opposed.
The claim by Democrats that this will strip desperately needed funding from already starving local school budgets is blatantly false. It will relieve those schools of overcrowding and will only cost them a portion of the state’s Distributive School Account. Each school would still get 10 percent of state funding for most students who leave, as well as local and federal funds for students zoned in that school but who do not attend. Schools would actually get more funding per pupil for those who remain in public schools and will not have to build as many new schools.
The education savings account can be spent on tuition at private schools — even church-operated schools, according to backers — textbooks, transportation, tutoring, testing, curriculum and supplemental materials.
Apparently the money can be used for homeschooling even though the law states, “A parent may not establish an education savings account for a child who will be homeschooled …”
Reportedly this is just an attempt to prevent public schools from interfering with homeschoolers’ autonomy, because the law also says children qualify for a savings account when they are “not enrolled full-time in a public or private school and who receives all or a portion of his or her instruction from a participating entity …”A parent can be a “participating entity.”
So, children can be schooled at home, just don’t call it homeschooling.
But don’t start budgeting for fall classes just yet. The law includes a requirement that the child in question must have “attended a public school for 100 consecutive school days to enter into an agreement …”
Then there is the likelihood of a constitutional challenge.
Assemblyman Elliot Anderson, a Las Vegas Democrat, has been telling reporters that the law is “blatantly unconstitutional,” because it would allow taxpayer money to be spent on church-run private schools.
Article 11 of the Nevada Constitution states: “Sectarian instruction prohibited in common schools and university.” And: “No public money to be used for sectarian purposes.”
Many state constitutions have some variation on this so-called Blaine Amendment.
You can count on a lawsuit to be filed shortly after the first child with an ESA enrolls in a church-operated school.
A Blaine Amendment challenge of Arizona’s ESA law failed — even though the state court previously declared vouchers unconstitutional — because the court found ESAs deposit “funds into an account from which parents may draw to purchase a wide range of services.”
Republican Attorney General Adam Laxalt will be tasked with defending the Nevada law when the court challenge comes. Perhaps, he can argue that these savings accounts are not tax money at all but simply a way to allow parents to keep their money instead of paying taxes to support public schools they do not use.
Choice and competition will make the education system better for all children in Nevada, whether they remain in public schools, attend private schools or are homeschooled.
Under this law there will be proof. The law requires students with ESAs to take standardized examinations in math and English and make the results available to the state Department of Education, which must publish aggregate data on the results.
A version of this editorial appears this past week in some of the Battle Born Media newspapers — The Ely Times, the Mesquite Local News, the Mineral County Independent-News, the Eureka Sentinel, Sparks Tribune and the Lincoln County Record.
So, a large family illegal immigrant family of 10, with 8 school aged children, can, by opting to “homeschool” (with REALLY “homeschooling”) their children, may, with the legislative approval of republicans, receive approximately $40,000 tax free, from Nevada taxpayers?
With the additional “bonus” that Nevada’s public educational system will receive another $8,000.00 for every 8 that don’t attend school?
And of course, this money comes with absolutely zero accountability to demonstrate that the families receiving this money are educating these children.
I wonder whether this will cause an unforeseen problems?
Correction:
Should read “without” actually homeschooling” their children.
And the public schools are “educating” them now?
Patrick, as usual read and comprehended only what he chose to read and comprehend.
Bypassing and ignoring anything showing accountability and limitation….ESA’s are required to be participatory, meaning they must be approved by the state. Students will be tested as they progress.
And he even laments the “anchor baby” theory liberals so hate when conservatives point it out!
Thomas:
Yes, of course the public schools are educating Nevada’s kids. Disagree with how much it costs taxpayers, or with the levels of education, or lots of things, but the great majority of Nevada’s kids are being educated, and there are legal consequences for the schools when kids aren’t.
According to this new law though, what legal consequences are there, for a “participating entity”/homeschooling parent, that takes the taxpayers’ money, but provides zero education and zero educational opportunity, to their children and instead elect to use the money by sending it back to relatives in another country?
And on what basis would a republican believe that to be a laudable “achievement”?
Patrick is a
“selective”
reader
Steve feel free to address any of the questions I posed; I look forward to a well reasoned response.
I already commented on that.
You read only what you choose to see, Patrick. I find it difficult, to say the least, to respond in any other way.
Steve:
Here are the two questions I posed:
According to this new law though, what legal consequences are there, for a “participating entity”/homeschooling parent, that takes the taxpayers’ money, but provides zero education and zero educational opportunity, to their children and instead elect to use the money by sending it back to relatives in another country?
And on what basis would a republican believe that to be a laudable “achievement”?
Again, I look forward to your reasoned response.
You will keep “asking” until you get an “answer” which fits your political dogma.
My answer was clear…and I feel no further need to repeat myself.
NRS 392.019
2. If such a child is exempt from compulsory attendance pursuant to NRS 392.110, the tutoring or other educational or instructional services received by the child pursuant to subsection 1 must be approved by the board of trustees of the school district in which the child resides.
Thank you Thomas! Any thoughts about that provision?
Too much government interference.
[…] of the news stories about the ACLU suing to block implementation of Nevada’s education savings accounts (ESAs), approved by this past Legislature as Senate Bill 302, mention that such accounts were […]
[…] of the news stories about the ACLU suing to block implementation of Nevada’s education savings accounts (ESAs), approved by this past Legislature as Senate Bill 302, mention that such accounts were […]
[…] of the news stories in August about the ACLU suing to block implementation of Nevada’s education savings accounts (ESAs) mentioned that such accounts were declared unconstitutional in Colorado. Like Nevada, […]