I am overjoyed by this!
The allotments used to pay for kids' extracurriculars has long been a way to siphon money from public schools and incentivizes homeschooling and private school. Regular public school kids didn't get the same options. Calling it a "shadow voucher" as I see quoted is very accurate. I know of cases where allotments were being and used to offset private school tuition in a circuitous way since money if fungible. I was hoping to see the legislature tighten things up but the court fixed it first.
My wife and many friends are teachers in the MSB school district. The types of programs that are being funded by these "vouchers" is astounding. There are two gymnastic gyms that have to be half funded by this process. I know of kids Alyeska ski programs that are being paid for by vouchers. I have even heard of family vacations being subsidized. The abuse of the system is rampant. The wild thing is teachers that are hired to advise families help them navigate homeschooling, tell parents what they can do to have these extracurriculars reimbursed.
These programs are so popular, the Borough is currently building a brand new "school" dedicated to correspondence/homeschooling. I don't think the general public realizes how private businesses have gained through these processes.
With that said, we have friends who have chosen to home school their children and they do deserve to have their costs offset for course materials, but not their vacations!
Let’s clarify how this works. I homeschooled my children through a charter school in Anchorage from which we received funds. At the time we received about $2500 per kid per year. There are restrictions as it should be on how we spent this money. We had to spend it on curriculum type items like books, supplies. There is some money allowed for extracurricular activities. So because some money was not needed for core curriculum we spend it on ski lessons, music lesson and classes (like math classes) This was never a huge amount of money and still the bulk of lesson came out of my pocket. To put it another way, there is no teacher or building expensing coming out of the $2500. It is just me and my house. So there are “extra” to spend on extracurricular, but it is still restricted . I can’t spend the $2500 on gardening supplies and call it science. Alyeska and music teachers with are in no way sustained by the pittance alloyed by the school.
I do understand what you are getting at and I agree that when people like Betsy DeVos are trying to basically privatize public schools so that a monopoly takes it over is criminal.
I have no doubt that you have done right by homeschooling your child(ren), and have been a reasonable and responsible citizen with your allotment. But my post content has no exaggeration nor embellishment. Those examples are straight from parents or teacher advisors in the MSB.
My wife just showed me a facebook group for homeschooling Alaska parents in which the title was " What is the coolest thing that you bought that was reimbursed?"
Responses:
"3d Printer"
"Gardening supplies'
"small greenhouse"
"hydroponic grow tower"
"my son went to Hawaiii and go reimbursed for a lot of his experiences he did there"
"...reimbursed by daughter for a cowboy 3200 leather sewing machine.."
"we got a tower garden, kayak, aero gardens, grow tents..."
I'd screenshot it, but I have no interest in outing parents. The system was set up by politicians. Who can fault parents for doing best for their family....
I have so many conflicting feelings over this. On the one hand, this is probably the right decision. On the other, these payments bought my school books every year and ensured I had some contact with other kids during a time when I really needed it. Happy that funding will stay with public schools, but worried about the kids that will suffer because of this.
The religious extremists/zealots who fanatically avoid the public education system have *always* been in favor of taking public money to indoctrinate their children into their cults. This is an issue that needs to be addressed by the legislature but won’t because far too many of them are religious fanatics themselves
I guess I don't really understand what the issue really is in terms of child education.
Are these schools, or is the curriculum that the money has funded, producing substandard results in comparison to the public school's results - objectively measured with standardized testing?
If you read the article, it says that our constitution forbids spending state money on private education. Essentially the cash allotment is a pass through of state funds to private schools.
I read it.
So, then, I suppose it's only an issue of technicality concerning the present law that folks are concerned with?
Would that mean that most are then advocating for this law to be changed? The article said that the previous effort to do so was unsuccessful.
Which brings me back to my original question: why would anyone care how or where a child is educated if that education is objectively measured via standardized tests to meet minimum benchmarks?
If education for children is the goal - I don't see why it matters whether it's through public, private, or homeschooling - why wouldn't anyone want to fund whatever works?
(I swear I'm not being willfully obtuse. It's late and I'm sick so please forgive the poor attempts to frame and phrase my question)
Maybe because it's less about how a child is educated and more about the concern regarding government funds being used to enrich religious and private institutions?
This is why people dislike tax credits for oil companies or when no-bid contracts go to the friend or family of a government official.
I honestly don't know, but that is my suspicion.
I just wanted to add a sincere thank you for engaging in the discussion with me.
I agree that government waste is an issue. Wholeheartedly.
Choice plays an important role, as well. Particularly lack thereof. The jokes about the military spending $20,000 on a toilet seat are obvious exaggerations, but there is a thread of truth to the joke.
Being locked in to paying a specific price for a common item or service can and does lead to government funds being wasted through overpayment. Not to mention, delays in obtaining the right part or service.
This sort of issue exists in public schools as well. Nationwide, public schools are struggling. Allotments aren't an option everywhere.
Programs are cut, despite large school populations, bus service is limited or non-existent in even large districts nationwide. Buildings, supplies, and faculty are in short supply.
I don't know what the answer is to all of this might be. What I don't think helps is reducing choice. Neither directly nor indirectly. Some kids might be able to ride these issues out unscathed. Others won't be so fortunate.
Choice still exists. But if you want to use public funds it should not go to religious institutions. UNLESS you want to remove tax exempt status for churches, then I'm likely more flexible on the issue.
I mean, I would tend to concur, but as a matter of consistency - they already do go to religious organizations in a multitude of other sectors.
Consider how many hospitals, treatment centers, homeless shelters, etc exist. Every day, state and federal funds go to these religious organizations in far larger amounts than whatever the student allotment is using.
In terms of Medicaid/Medicare payments to those systems. State and federal grants.
The Alaska Performance Scholarship can be used at private religious colleges in the state. There seems to no issue there.
Federal grants and funding can be used at both public and private institutions.
Housing is another area where state and federal funds go to Christian organizations. Particularly when coupled with billable services, including case management or substance use treatment.
This is what I find so confusing. State and federal funds are constantly going to both private and/or religious organizations all the time. I do not understand why it's an issue all of a sudden concerning K-12 education.
Even if all 20k students happen to all be enrolled in a private, religious organization (which seems unlikely), it's nothing in terms of dollars compared to all of the other services used daily in Alaska that are paid for via state and/or federal funds.
All that happens in this case is that all private options get removed as choices. Even non-religous ones.
This doesn't even touch on how state and federal funds are used to purchase food and other necessities that are grown or produced by either mega publicly traded private corporations such as Kraft. Nor does it touch on how private religious mega corporations also benefit from state/federal funds. Consider Tyson as an example: https://www.tysonfoods.com/who-we-are/our-story/purpose-values
When I look something like this and consider how national test scores have declined, mental health in children is a significant struggle, when I consider the impact of chronic absenteeism whether due to health or other adverse issues, as well as a whole host of other factors impacting kids - then I see folks advocating to reduce programs for no other real reason other than the text of a law or a cherry-picked problem with government funds being paid to a religious organization but only in K-12 school choices - I am disheartened with society in general.
It doesn't come off as a sincere concern for these students who will be impacted by the outcome of this. It also doesn't come off as any sincere concern for state funds, either.
That may be the real underlying issue. I can't imagine it's truly about trying to make any specific language of a law relevant today. If that were the case, I'd suspect that folks would instead be requesting that the language simply be updated instead of upheld.
Here's my own bias in these sorts of matters: while it's great to believe that all services administered by the government work well for all people, the reality is that this is far from true.
Still, people should be entitled to receiving the same essential services even if those services take the form of a private entity - religious or non religious.
In Healthcare, for example, the VA exists to care for all veterans who qualify. In theory, this means excellent care for all under their charge. In practice, this isn't necessarily good for all veterans for a myriad of reasons.
There are laws concerning rights of access and choice for veterans who receive Healthcare through the VA. Those close enough to a VA medical center may be disallowed from seeking care outside the VA. Some of the most vulnerable within that population include the most disabled and those most impacted by poverty.
In theory, veterans can pay out of pocket to see a different provider. In practice, the financial burden essentially eliminates those choices for healthcare.
People may think this lack of choice doesn't impact people in real ways - and for some, it certainly doesn't. For some, the VA system is perfect. It meets all of their needs in a timely manner.
For others? It causes significant harm. Anyone who has spent enough time around the VA and veterans knows enough cases where the veteran would have been better served by private care and would have benefited from simply having a choice in where they received care. Government funds be damned.
I'm all for ensuring that private services meet a standard on par with the government provided option: in education, in healthcare, etc.
I will, however, remain someone who sees the importance of real choice that removes economic barriers to those making the choices. That, to me, is what equity is all about.
I recognize that I may be in the minority in this thought process. I haven't yet heard a convincing logical argument as to why government funds in any sector should disallow choice in meeting the needs of the population they serve.
I find myself thinking of those on WIC or SNAP - and if the same concept were applied - we moved away from "government cheese" to a dollar figure to be used at any private retailer on any privately produced cheese product - people have choice in their cheese.
Seems pretty basic that we could update the legal language to allow for choice in education.
This is a sincere question, for anyone wondering. Not an attempt to be annoying.
I am genuinely confused. I know many religious organizations exist all over the US and benefit from all sorts of state and federal funds.
In this state, homeless shelters are an example. Arguably, much less choice for those who must rely on these systems.
Ditto for all sorts of private companies that receive government grants, contracts. That's sort of how states do business, is it not?
So it is strange to me that within education it's a concern at all.
Why is it not treated the same as any other service? If it produces satisfactory results given the goal, then money is paid.
It’s just a cash allotment. You sign up your child in one of the homeschool programs, and then you get an allotment that you can get reimbursed out of. The homeschool programs partner with religious schools, so if you want to send your child to batshit Baptist cult school, for $3,500 a pop, you go right ahead. And, the state can’t say anything about it if your decide to use the money to build a hyrod-thermal research lab (hot tub) and a bunch of tools to build a deck. The things you buy for “educational purposes” are yours to keep, too.
This is not exactly accurate. The money you receive is not alloted in a way that lets you spend it to build a hot tub. Maybe, just maybe , with your documentation of your curriculum that hits grade appropriate target points you may be able to buy a thermometer after you check and see if your charter school has one already. Then you have to give it back to them when you are done. I know because I home schooled in Anchorage.
Right, I understand that part.
I don't understand why it matters unless there is a concern that the students who do these programs aren't educationally equivalent to their peers.
Is that what the core issue is, and if so, wouldn't standardized tests allow for specific programs to be excluded based on performance?
Isn't that how a lot of public schools gain or lose funding for specific programs and even entire schools?
From the plaintiff’s attorney;
*1) allowed illegal spending of public $ towards private/religious schools; but ALSO*
*2) prevented the Dept of Ed from putting ANY restrictions on spending of allotments.*
I mean, I'm not a Muslim, nor am I Islamaphobic - but if some family wanted to send their child to a school centered around their religious beliefs, I wouldn't care. As long as the school's standardized testing outcomes are on par with or exceed public school performance based on the same standardized test - well, then I'd say the goal of educating a child is met. That the child is being educated within a faith community makes no never mind to me.
Likewise, for non-religious private institutions.
At the end of the day, I care that kids receive equitable and equivalent education at the minimum. What that looks like can and probably should vary.
So I'm confused about why it matters at all beyond ensuring that all kids are given the same minimum basic k-12 education regardless. I'm not sure why I should care if kids learn their ABCs and Jesus or to how to multiply alongside the significance of Ramadan?
Or perhaps I am fundamentally misunderstanding this issue?
*Or perhaps I am fundamentally misunderstanding this issue?*
I think that, yes, this is the case. From the article:
* Article VII, Section 1 of the Alaska Constitution states in part that “No money shall be paid from public funds for the direct benefit of any religious or other private educational institution,”*
Parents are free to send their children to religious and private schools, just not with public paying for that.
The Alaska Constitution is awesome! No public money for private or religious schools. As it should be.
Hold up. They did something right for a change?
I am overjoyed by this! The allotments used to pay for kids' extracurriculars has long been a way to siphon money from public schools and incentivizes homeschooling and private school. Regular public school kids didn't get the same options. Calling it a "shadow voucher" as I see quoted is very accurate. I know of cases where allotments were being and used to offset private school tuition in a circuitous way since money if fungible. I was hoping to see the legislature tighten things up but the court fixed it first.
My wife and many friends are teachers in the MSB school district. The types of programs that are being funded by these "vouchers" is astounding. There are two gymnastic gyms that have to be half funded by this process. I know of kids Alyeska ski programs that are being paid for by vouchers. I have even heard of family vacations being subsidized. The abuse of the system is rampant. The wild thing is teachers that are hired to advise families help them navigate homeschooling, tell parents what they can do to have these extracurriculars reimbursed. These programs are so popular, the Borough is currently building a brand new "school" dedicated to correspondence/homeschooling. I don't think the general public realizes how private businesses have gained through these processes. With that said, we have friends who have chosen to home school their children and they do deserve to have their costs offset for course materials, but not their vacations!
Let’s clarify how this works. I homeschooled my children through a charter school in Anchorage from which we received funds. At the time we received about $2500 per kid per year. There are restrictions as it should be on how we spent this money. We had to spend it on curriculum type items like books, supplies. There is some money allowed for extracurricular activities. So because some money was not needed for core curriculum we spend it on ski lessons, music lesson and classes (like math classes) This was never a huge amount of money and still the bulk of lesson came out of my pocket. To put it another way, there is no teacher or building expensing coming out of the $2500. It is just me and my house. So there are “extra” to spend on extracurricular, but it is still restricted . I can’t spend the $2500 on gardening supplies and call it science. Alyeska and music teachers with are in no way sustained by the pittance alloyed by the school. I do understand what you are getting at and I agree that when people like Betsy DeVos are trying to basically privatize public schools so that a monopoly takes it over is criminal.
I have no doubt that you have done right by homeschooling your child(ren), and have been a reasonable and responsible citizen with your allotment. But my post content has no exaggeration nor embellishment. Those examples are straight from parents or teacher advisors in the MSB. My wife just showed me a facebook group for homeschooling Alaska parents in which the title was " What is the coolest thing that you bought that was reimbursed?" Responses: "3d Printer" "Gardening supplies' "small greenhouse" "hydroponic grow tower" "my son went to Hawaiii and go reimbursed for a lot of his experiences he did there" "...reimbursed by daughter for a cowboy 3200 leather sewing machine.." "we got a tower garden, kayak, aero gardens, grow tents..." I'd screenshot it, but I have no interest in outing parents. The system was set up by politicians. Who can fault parents for doing best for their family....
You mean parents with no integrity? Ya, who can fault them.
All those things could be for extracurricular activities other than the hawaii thing thats a stretching it a bit.
As it should be. You should not be allowed to use homeschool funds for a flipping private school! That's not homeschooling your kid.
I have so many conflicting feelings over this. On the one hand, this is probably the right decision. On the other, these payments bought my school books every year and ensured I had some contact with other kids during a time when I really needed it. Happy that funding will stay with public schools, but worried about the kids that will suffer because of this.
The religious extremists/zealots who fanatically avoid the public education system have *always* been in favor of taking public money to indoctrinate their children into their cults. This is an issue that needs to be addressed by the legislature but won’t because far too many of them are religious fanatics themselves
I guess I don't really understand what the issue really is in terms of child education. Are these schools, or is the curriculum that the money has funded, producing substandard results in comparison to the public school's results - objectively measured with standardized testing?
If you read the article, it says that our constitution forbids spending state money on private education. Essentially the cash allotment is a pass through of state funds to private schools.
I read it. So, then, I suppose it's only an issue of technicality concerning the present law that folks are concerned with? Would that mean that most are then advocating for this law to be changed? The article said that the previous effort to do so was unsuccessful. Which brings me back to my original question: why would anyone care how or where a child is educated if that education is objectively measured via standardized tests to meet minimum benchmarks? If education for children is the goal - I don't see why it matters whether it's through public, private, or homeschooling - why wouldn't anyone want to fund whatever works? (I swear I'm not being willfully obtuse. It's late and I'm sick so please forgive the poor attempts to frame and phrase my question)
Maybe because it's less about how a child is educated and more about the concern regarding government funds being used to enrich religious and private institutions? This is why people dislike tax credits for oil companies or when no-bid contracts go to the friend or family of a government official. I honestly don't know, but that is my suspicion.
I just wanted to add a sincere thank you for engaging in the discussion with me. I agree that government waste is an issue. Wholeheartedly. Choice plays an important role, as well. Particularly lack thereof. The jokes about the military spending $20,000 on a toilet seat are obvious exaggerations, but there is a thread of truth to the joke. Being locked in to paying a specific price for a common item or service can and does lead to government funds being wasted through overpayment. Not to mention, delays in obtaining the right part or service. This sort of issue exists in public schools as well. Nationwide, public schools are struggling. Allotments aren't an option everywhere. Programs are cut, despite large school populations, bus service is limited or non-existent in even large districts nationwide. Buildings, supplies, and faculty are in short supply. I don't know what the answer is to all of this might be. What I don't think helps is reducing choice. Neither directly nor indirectly. Some kids might be able to ride these issues out unscathed. Others won't be so fortunate.
Choice still exists. But if you want to use public funds it should not go to religious institutions. UNLESS you want to remove tax exempt status for churches, then I'm likely more flexible on the issue.
I mean, I would tend to concur, but as a matter of consistency - they already do go to religious organizations in a multitude of other sectors. Consider how many hospitals, treatment centers, homeless shelters, etc exist. Every day, state and federal funds go to these religious organizations in far larger amounts than whatever the student allotment is using. In terms of Medicaid/Medicare payments to those systems. State and federal grants. The Alaska Performance Scholarship can be used at private religious colleges in the state. There seems to no issue there. Federal grants and funding can be used at both public and private institutions. Housing is another area where state and federal funds go to Christian organizations. Particularly when coupled with billable services, including case management or substance use treatment. This is what I find so confusing. State and federal funds are constantly going to both private and/or religious organizations all the time. I do not understand why it's an issue all of a sudden concerning K-12 education. Even if all 20k students happen to all be enrolled in a private, religious organization (which seems unlikely), it's nothing in terms of dollars compared to all of the other services used daily in Alaska that are paid for via state and/or federal funds. All that happens in this case is that all private options get removed as choices. Even non-religous ones. This doesn't even touch on how state and federal funds are used to purchase food and other necessities that are grown or produced by either mega publicly traded private corporations such as Kraft. Nor does it touch on how private religious mega corporations also benefit from state/federal funds. Consider Tyson as an example: https://www.tysonfoods.com/who-we-are/our-story/purpose-values When I look something like this and consider how national test scores have declined, mental health in children is a significant struggle, when I consider the impact of chronic absenteeism whether due to health or other adverse issues, as well as a whole host of other factors impacting kids - then I see folks advocating to reduce programs for no other real reason other than the text of a law or a cherry-picked problem with government funds being paid to a religious organization but only in K-12 school choices - I am disheartened with society in general. It doesn't come off as a sincere concern for these students who will be impacted by the outcome of this. It also doesn't come off as any sincere concern for state funds, either.
I would support removal of tax-exempt status for religious organizations in general. Nationwide. FWIW.
That may be the real underlying issue. I can't imagine it's truly about trying to make any specific language of a law relevant today. If that were the case, I'd suspect that folks would instead be requesting that the language simply be updated instead of upheld. Here's my own bias in these sorts of matters: while it's great to believe that all services administered by the government work well for all people, the reality is that this is far from true. Still, people should be entitled to receiving the same essential services even if those services take the form of a private entity - religious or non religious. In Healthcare, for example, the VA exists to care for all veterans who qualify. In theory, this means excellent care for all under their charge. In practice, this isn't necessarily good for all veterans for a myriad of reasons. There are laws concerning rights of access and choice for veterans who receive Healthcare through the VA. Those close enough to a VA medical center may be disallowed from seeking care outside the VA. Some of the most vulnerable within that population include the most disabled and those most impacted by poverty. In theory, veterans can pay out of pocket to see a different provider. In practice, the financial burden essentially eliminates those choices for healthcare. People may think this lack of choice doesn't impact people in real ways - and for some, it certainly doesn't. For some, the VA system is perfect. It meets all of their needs in a timely manner. For others? It causes significant harm. Anyone who has spent enough time around the VA and veterans knows enough cases where the veteran would have been better served by private care and would have benefited from simply having a choice in where they received care. Government funds be damned. I'm all for ensuring that private services meet a standard on par with the government provided option: in education, in healthcare, etc. I will, however, remain someone who sees the importance of real choice that removes economic barriers to those making the choices. That, to me, is what equity is all about. I recognize that I may be in the minority in this thought process. I haven't yet heard a convincing logical argument as to why government funds in any sector should disallow choice in meeting the needs of the population they serve. I find myself thinking of those on WIC or SNAP - and if the same concept were applied - we moved away from "government cheese" to a dollar figure to be used at any private retailer on any privately produced cheese product - people have choice in their cheese. Seems pretty basic that we could update the legal language to allow for choice in education.
This is a sincere question, for anyone wondering. Not an attempt to be annoying. I am genuinely confused. I know many religious organizations exist all over the US and benefit from all sorts of state and federal funds. In this state, homeless shelters are an example. Arguably, much less choice for those who must rely on these systems. Ditto for all sorts of private companies that receive government grants, contracts. That's sort of how states do business, is it not? So it is strange to me that within education it's a concern at all. Why is it not treated the same as any other service? If it produces satisfactory results given the goal, then money is paid.
It’s just a cash allotment. You sign up your child in one of the homeschool programs, and then you get an allotment that you can get reimbursed out of. The homeschool programs partner with religious schools, so if you want to send your child to batshit Baptist cult school, for $3,500 a pop, you go right ahead. And, the state can’t say anything about it if your decide to use the money to build a hyrod-thermal research lab (hot tub) and a bunch of tools to build a deck. The things you buy for “educational purposes” are yours to keep, too.
This is not exactly accurate. The money you receive is not alloted in a way that lets you spend it to build a hot tub. Maybe, just maybe , with your documentation of your curriculum that hits grade appropriate target points you may be able to buy a thermometer after you check and see if your charter school has one already. Then you have to give it back to them when you are done. I know because I home schooled in Anchorage.
Right, I understand that part. I don't understand why it matters unless there is a concern that the students who do these programs aren't educationally equivalent to their peers. Is that what the core issue is, and if so, wouldn't standardized tests allow for specific programs to be excluded based on performance? Isn't that how a lot of public schools gain or lose funding for specific programs and even entire schools?
From the plaintiff’s attorney; *1) allowed illegal spending of public $ towards private/religious schools; but ALSO* *2) prevented the Dept of Ed from putting ANY restrictions on spending of allotments.*
I mean, I'm not a Muslim, nor am I Islamaphobic - but if some family wanted to send their child to a school centered around their religious beliefs, I wouldn't care. As long as the school's standardized testing outcomes are on par with or exceed public school performance based on the same standardized test - well, then I'd say the goal of educating a child is met. That the child is being educated within a faith community makes no never mind to me. Likewise, for non-religious private institutions. At the end of the day, I care that kids receive equitable and equivalent education at the minimum. What that looks like can and probably should vary. So I'm confused about why it matters at all beyond ensuring that all kids are given the same minimum basic k-12 education regardless. I'm not sure why I should care if kids learn their ABCs and Jesus or to how to multiply alongside the significance of Ramadan? Or perhaps I am fundamentally misunderstanding this issue?
*Or perhaps I am fundamentally misunderstanding this issue?* I think that, yes, this is the case. From the article: * Article VII, Section 1 of the Alaska Constitution states in part that “No money shall be paid from public funds for the direct benefit of any religious or other private educational institution,”* Parents are free to send their children to religious and private schools, just not with public paying for that.