NC Governor declares ‘state of emergency’ due to GOP school voucher expansion, tax cuts

[Napoleon]

"An Office of State Budget and Management analysis says allowing any family to get a voucher could cost traditional public schools $200 million in state funding from lost student enrollment. Rural counties could be particularly hard hit.

...“Public school superintendents are telling me they’ll likely have to cut public schools to the bone — eliminate early college, AP and gifted courses, art, music, sports — if the legislature keeps draining funds to pay for private schools and those massive tax breaks,” Cooper said."

Read more at: https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article275659111.html#storylink=cpy

That’s nonsense. North Carolina has had this voucher program since 2014.

 

[TomFitz]

The voucher program already existed. All the Republicans are - wisely - doing is adding an income tier to it, i.e. to ensure that poor families are prioritized as beneficiaries over families that can otherwise afford to pay the private school tuition out-of-pocket.

No, that isn’t what they’re doing at all.

Indeed, they’re doing the opposite.

Vouchers in NC were reserved ONLY for the poor. Now anyone, including students already in private schools are eligible.

This is nothing less than using money for public education to subsidize private schools, while bleeding public ones. Which is the net effect that all school voucher programs have.

Desegregation resulted in a rush to establish private schools and academies all across the South in the 1960’s.

This subsidizes that effort.

 

[Helix]

Private schools should be private. Republicans use vouchers to destroy the public education system.

 

[j brown's body]

That’s nonsense. North Carolina has had this voucher program since 2014.

Too bad, since some prove to be no better than public education, and sometimes worse.

Now open to rich kids too.

 

[TomFitz]

That’s nonsense. North Carolina has had this voucher program since 2014.

The Republican legislature wants to implement a voucher program that has proved to be a failure elsewhere.

"Many parents would like their children to be able to attend a private school, but there is little reason to believe any given child will get a better education in private schools (at least ones that participate in voucher programs) over in public ones. A 2020 report in Chalkbeat explains how the evidence on vouchers has turned negative. “Older studies tended to show neutral or modest positive effects of vouchers on academic performance,” the story notes, but “in the last few years, a spate of studies have shown that voucher programs in Indiana, Louisiana, Ohio, and Washington D.C. hurt student achievement — often causing moderate to large declines.”.

...The answer is that vouchers have ceased to be an education-reform program. They are being used now mainly to reimburse parents who home-school their children or send them to private school. In Arizona, which recently enacted a universal voucher system, three-quarters of the recipients already attended private schools. Providing vouchers didn’t give children choices; it simply sent checks to parents who were already privately educating their children."

Link

I went to private school.

I always marvelled at the resources that the public school kids had. Electives, air conditioning, turf fields, etc.

 

[Napoleon]

Too bad, since some prove to be no better than public education, and sometimes worse.

Now open to rich kids too.

Studies have shown that voucher programs don’t yield any statistically significant improvement in academic performance. The overall performance of private schools has more to do with the academic capability of the students than the quality of education per say. Still, the public school system is a dumpster fire and it doesn’t improve no matter how much money is thrown at it so, for parents, perception is reality.

 

[SuperDS77]

What are you talking about? Kansas showed our Republic the male elected officials who claim to be republicans were pushing their agenda over the will of the people and their abortion ban was shot down by a popular vote of the people.
Being elected doesn't make the politician free to act anyway they want...

Apparently the governor of NC does not realize this fact.

 

[Integrityrespec]

Oh, you're saying that the gerrymandering just isn't there for the NC statehouse, or at least its effects are minimal.

I'm reasonably certain that it is statistically significant. Lines can be drawn to "pack" minority voters into a few districts, for example. But I admit that I would have to do some digging to find some sources on this.



Here comes the right-wing "blame the teachers" tactic.

Of course you miss the point. The point is bad schools holding our kids and parents hostage. Fix the schools or give these families a choice to determine their path forward. A good education is the best thing we can do to move people up the ladder. I'm a big supporter of public schools, all my children attended, as did I and my wife and most of my extended family and friends. Many family members are in education and work in the public system. However, I know there are bad teachers, administrators, school boards and politicians involved in our schools.
Keeping kids from being able to attend better functioning schools is not helping those kids. Allowing violence in schools to go on and on because you can't or won't properly punish kids who create these problems. When teachers fear their safety, when they have to spend more time dealing with discipline than teaching, when our schools are more concerned with social issues than providing good educations, it's time to let kids and parents make changes that benefit them.
Why do many schools public and private work? Good teaching, good teachers, discipline within the schools. I hear democrats complain that many kids are not allowed in private schools because private schools don't have to accept them. Well, they are protecting discipline in the schools. Students that are problems can be removed and both parents and students know this and are much more likely to follow the rules and work on what they are there for, a good education.
You simply have to remove trouble students from the general school population to see schools improve. Many districts have alternative schools where they place the problem students. If you want to participate in the good schools, with great social activities and athletics and great academics, you behave.

 

[Cope]

You read quite a bit into the comments of a governor who is merely trying to protect public education.

Abandoning public schools will not help them.

"Them" who?

Abandoning public schools certainly helps someone. Usually the someone's that the public school is dragging down while they teach to the lowest common denominator.

 

[Cope]

Of course you miss the point. The point is bad schools holding our kids and parents hostage. Fix the schools or give these families a choice to determine their path forward. A good education is the best thing we can do to move people up the ladder. I'm a big supporter of public schools, all my children attended, as did I and my wife and most of my extended family and friends. Many family members are in education and work in the public system. However, I know there are bad teachers, administrators, school boards and politicians involved in our schools.

Good schools REQUIRE good parent's. Our problem is primarily bad parent's so we bitch and moan about schools. We expect them (teachers) to make up the shortfall. They have not been able to through a multitude of reasons. The union being but one. Until we change the cultures that do not value education and stop glorifying the split families with no second parent present (AND ACTIVE) we can expect educational importance to continue to slide. We also need to fix poverty, the woe is me attitude that permeates society today, with everyone seemingly a victim.

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

THANK GOD I live in Canada. JAYSUS! I would not want to be raising kids in the U.S.

In Canada, public schools are well funded. There is no outcry by Karen moms about our kids learning about the real history of Canada. Books aren't being banned. Teachers aren't being verbally abused or threatened.

EVERYTHING in the U.S. has to be poisoned by partisan politics? EVERYTHING? Seriously?

 

[j brown's body]

Good schools REQUIRE good parent's. Our problem is primarily bad parent's so we bitch and moan about schools. We expect them (teachers) to make up the shortfall. They have not been able to through a multitude of reasons. The union being but one. Until we change the cultures that do not value education and stop glorifying the split families with no second parent present (AND ACTIVE) we can expect educational importance to continue to slide. We also need to fix poverty, the woe is me attitude that permeates society today, with everyone seemingly a victim.

One can't help bu bother to notice, if one cares to look, that there are successful public schools in upper-middle class neighborhoods and struggling schools in more working class-poorer neighborhoods. And, of course, neighborhoods are primarily designed by race.

 

[Visbek]

Can we agree that this is a blatant, transparent and malignant use of the so-called "emergency" powers by this governor?

Can we agree that you're exaggerating the situation, and didn't actually read your own link?

As already noted by another poster, he did not literally declare an emergency and seize control of every school in the state. He's telling citizens to contact their state legislators and stop massive cuts to the state's education budget. That is your idea of attacking democracy? Seriously?

Do you pillory Republican elected officials who use similar rhetorical flourishes -- as happens on a regular basis? Somehow, I doubt it.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Define "overwhelming support."

A veto proof majority of republicant legislative support.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Considering he did NOT use any "emergency" powers, your statement is meaningless.

Stating there is a "state of emergency for public education" is just strong words. It does not release any emergency funds or have any other substantive outcome if I understand what happened correctly.

Yep, it’s a term-limited (lame duck?) governor (who sent his kid to private school) spewing political nonsense.

 

[ttwtt78640]

A majority of the people elected the governor. And again, that supermajority wouldn't even exist if one of the lawmakers hadn't switched parties after her election. So you fail on two points.

The governor doesn’t make laws and which political party a legislator belongs to doesn’t change their ability to vote as they see fit.

 

[ttwtt78640]

But not if a lawmaker hadn't switched parties after her election, so clearly the approval of the people doesn't enter into it with regards to the legislature's failure to fund schools.



Do you agree that a majority of NC's people chose the governor?

Belonging to a political party doesn’t require voting a certain way on a given bill.

 

[TomFitz]

Studies have shown that voucher programs don’t yield any statistically significant improvement in academic performance. The overall performance of private schools has more to do with the academic capability of the students than the quality of education per say. Still, the public school system is a dumpster fire and it doesn’t improve no matter how much money is thrown at it so, for parents, perception is reality.

Yes, that is very consistant. Voucher programs aren’t intended to either.

They’re intended to subsidize flight from public education with taxpayer money.

The parents of people who can’t afford private schools, even with vouchers, wind up paying for the ones who can to go to private school.

This is the net effect of voucher programs.

You can drain 20% of the students from a public school through a voucher program. But you can’t cut 20% of an English teacher, or a Math teacher, and you can’t tell the bond holders that you’re defaulting on 20% of the amount you borrowed to finance building the school.

 

[Blue Dog]

Gerrymandering allows the majority power to wield more power than it should. Once elected reps can choose their constituents, the democratic aspects of the system become transmogrified.

Neither the Democratic nor Republican parties should have such an ability. The response should not be “because they can we can”….

 

[TomFitz]

Belonging to a political party doesn’t require voting a certain way on a given bill.

And see you quickly folks like you turn on those that don’t!

 

[Cardinal]

A veto proof majority of republicant legislative support.

But not a majority of the people, which is the point.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Honest question: does gerrymandering apply to state legislatures? I thought that only for Federal House seats.

Yes.

 

[ttwtt78640]

That's a non-argument posing as an argument.

“Yes.” was a perfectly clear reply. The fact that demorats also gerrymander is true.

 

[Cardinal]

“Yes.” was a perfectly clear reply. The fact that demorats also gerrymander is true.

But Democrats had a bill to ban gerrymandering since we acknowledge that it is an obviously anti-democratic device, and Republicans rejected it.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Well, I'm referring to the mechanics of gerrymandering. Based on what I know...and what I know may not be correct...the mechanics of gerrymandering don't apply to statehouse elections.

Yes they do, since those also use geographic districts.

Which is all really beside the point, because the fundamental and central fact is that if not for a Democrat switching parties, this wouldn't be happening.

One’s political party label doesn’t require that they vote for (or against) a particular bill.