"There are other things as well. It's the Republican Party through through it's attempt to impose voter ID which is intent on rigging the election in their favor. Such an attack on the integrity of our political systems would be inconceivable coming from Democrats." Hiram
My reasons for supporting the amendment are pretty simple:
- Are the DFL policy arguments so weak that they require the most off the grid to people to win. What does that say for their policies?
- Voting is more important than getting on a plane or buying a beer, therefore ID requirements should be more robust, not less.
- The Republicans will also likely lose votes as the "standard of proof" is increased, they seem ok with this.
Protect My Vote
MinnPost Voter ID Page
MPP Voter Suppression
48 comments:
Voter ID is nothing more than a Republican attempt to rig elections in their favor. They know elections are close, and they know the reason why they lose, is that they don't run well with voters who find it difficult to vote. And so they hatched a plan which would make it just a little bit more difficult for those folks, knowing that fewer of them would, but was subtle enough so that they could fool others, and sadly fool themselves into thinking that wasn't precisely what they are doing.
Through their support for voter ID, Republicans are demonstrating their contempt for voters, their willingness to manipulate the electoral process for their own advantage, and their utter indifference to the integrity of our election system.
==Hiram
they require the most off the grid to people to win.
Minorities, the young, and the old, our servicemen at home and abroad, may be off the Republican grid, but they aren't off ours. Are Republican arguments so weak that they only way they can win elections is by rigging them? Maybe, just maybe, the way to win elections is by serving people, not disenfranchinsing them.
==Hiram
Republicans want to limit access to the voting booth for the same reason all of limit access to airplanes. Republicans are afraid of what voters will do once they get in there.
==Hiram
I think you have that backward.
Republicans want to ensure that only the actual registered voters gets to vote. And preferably in the correct polling location with the correct ballot. Therefore protecting the integrity of our American elections.
Just like ensuring that only the actual registered ticket holders is allowed to board the plane. Or maybe we should stop checking names here and take our chances.
To do any less is to sacrifice the credibility of our most important right and dilute the votes of true eligible voters.
Minorities, the young, the old, our servicemen at home and abroad will all be able to vote just fine as long as they choose to maintain an accurate government issued ID.
The only people that this may impact negatively are those that don't want to be found. Therefore they avoid being registered in the gov't databases. And if they aren't willing to be registered in our society, should they be voting? Since technically they don't exist...
I thought it was the DFL / big gov't folks that would want every American accounted for in the Gov't databases. And that the Conservative / anti big brother folks that would be rebelling... Go figure.
Republicans want to ensure that only the actual registered voters gets to vote.
Hardly. No, Republicans understand the same electoral math we do. And the original posting reflects that understanding by the way. They know that "off the grid" voters skew Democratic and so they want to erect barriers to their voting. This isn't easy by the way. Past attempts are either illegal, or in disrepute. They can't have literacy tests or poll taxes. As Larry Wilmore points out, it just isn't that easy to discriminate on the basis of race anymore. But voter Id has a superficial plausibility, that Republicans can use to fool the public, and with their huge capacity for self deception, fool themselves.
==Hiram
And if they aren't willing to be registered in our society, should they be voting?
I am all in favor of voter registration. Voter ID would restrict voting by registered voters.
--Hiram
To do any less is to sacrifice the credibility of our most important right and dilute the votes of true eligible voters.
To allow blatant Republican attempts to rig the voting system is an attack on the integrity of the system and an assault on the freedom of all of us.
"The only people that this may impact negatively are those that don't want to be found.}
So many Americans are frightened of any interaction with the government. Since when is not wanting to be found a disqualification from voting. What does putting up barriers to those people have to do with voter integrity?
==Hiram
If they want a voice in our society, let them be part of our society.
I am frightened of the government at times of late, yet it is my duty as part of this society to be engaged and visible. If they want the rewards of our society, let them meet the responsibilities. Let the stand and be counted.
Besides that way it easier for IRS to find them at their current address. (Hahahahaha)
So is an photo ID required to register?
If they want a voice in our society, let them be part of our society.
And doesn't it come down to that really. That Republicans want to exclude from voting people who aren't "part of our society" whatever that subjectively or objectively might mean? It isn't about voter integrity really, it's about taking measures to prevent people we don't like, or who show a distressing tendency to vote for candidates we don't like, from voting. People who we euphemistically describe as "off the grid".
To allow such blatant vote rigging would be a direct assault on the integrity of American elections, one from which we might never recover.
--Hiram
So is an photo ID required to register? No.
And it certainly isn't required to get a photo ID.
--Hiram
So in summary:
You would err on the side of having folks vote that should not be voting or their voting more than once in order to ensure it is easy for everyone to vote. No matter how likely that population is to vote.
and
I would err on the side of having people verify their identity, which would change the normal behaviors of a very very small portion of our population for the better (ie put them on grid), to vote in order to ensure that only approved voters can vote and they can do it only once.
I can't wait to see how the vote falls. By the way, below are links to MN's accepted proof of Identity requirements. These are what is needed to get an ID or Driver's license. And a link to the Registration Instruction page.
I still love the have someone vouch for you option...
MN ID Card Page
MN ID Reqts
MN Voter Registration Page
As for "excluding voters", as moderate as I am, I personally don't care who votes as long as they can only do it once and they legally have the right to vote in that polling station. I simply can't see how this can assured without requiring voters to show a valid photo ID.
If you had worked as an election judge and paid attention, you would know that photo ID is one good way to prevent voter fraud. And before you say it, you cannot say there is no voter fraud if you do not CHECK for voter fraud, and that requires a photo ID. QED. Again, the only way to prevent some voter fraud is with photo ID.
Right now, you can walk into any clerk's office, grab a bunch of registration forms, and fill in as many names as you want, with no ID. When somebody shows up to vote, they point to that name on the rolls and they vote. The vote counts. With photo ID it couldn't be done. Without photo ID it happened 1.5 million times in the last election. Prove me wrong.
I know for a FACT that there are tens of thousands of fraudulent votes cast in Minnesota, but it doesn't matter because those votes counted. In the 30 states that have some form of voter ID, participation has gone UP. The US Supreme Court has ruled that VID laws do not "unfairly burden" anybody and the Indiana court ruled that, since not one person known to the plaintiffs had actually been denied the chance to vote, there was no standing to challenge the law.
Let's be faced with it. The ONLY reason (phony-baloney excuses nothwithstanding) to oppose voter ID is to continue the sort of wholesale cheating that is the DFL stock in trade. I've seen it, it's real.
J. Ewing
LWW: Protecting Voting Rights
My link is my comment as all minds are made up here.
Very time effective comment and great link:
- 18 percent of elderly citizens do not have a government-issued photo ID.
- 15 percent of voters earning less than $35,000 a year do not have a photo ID.
- 18 percent of citizens aged 18-24do not have a government-issued ID with their current address and name.
- 10 percent of voters with disabilities do not have a photo ID.
- 25 percent of African-American citizens of voting age do not have a current, government-issued ID
I can understand the 18 -25 yr olds having the incorrect address on their ID. (ie students, etc) So why wouldn't they vote where their ID says they live via absentee ballot. Otherwise it sounds likely that School ID's may be valid when this shakes out.
As for the others, we wonder about welfare, medicare and other frauds and yet we do not require these people to have state furnished identification. What are we thinking? It does amaze me.
f you had worked as an election judge and paid attention, you would know that photo ID is one good way to prevent voter fraud
I have asked a lot of election judges and none of them has ever told me fraud is an issue. If you ask anyone involved in elections, they would tell you that voter ID is an effective way to discourage those "off the grid" voters, the voters some of us don't think should have the same voice as the rest of us om the affairs of our nation.
If we are talking facts, lets talk facts. Republicans want voter Id because they can't have poll taxes, they can't have literacy tests, they can't have property tests, or any of the historical ways of excluding people they don't like from voting. So they are giving this a try.
Now J. is complaining about voter registration procedures, something the Republican legislature could have addressed but didn't. Turns out he is against easy registration of voters, another way of discouraging "off the grid" voters.
Look, it's possible to commit voter fraud. It's possible to steal library books or rob banks too, yet they don't check for ID when we enter libraries or banks either. We have to trust people, because this is America, it's a big country, with lots and lots of "off the grid" people Republicans don't think are worth hearing from and because there is no other way.
--Hiram
Otherwise it sounds likely that School ID's may be valid when this shakes out.
There is a lot of confusion on these issues. The amendment says valid government issued photographic ID. The ID doesn't have to have an address on it. It doesn't have to have been issued by Minnesota. A California or Canadian Id would satisfy the requirement. An ID from a public University like the University of Illinois would satisfy the requirement, and ID from Gustavus would not. A US passport would satisfy the requirement, but so would a passport from Russia or China, or perhaps one you purchased online from Monaco. This is the nature of the amendment Republicans have presented for your consideration, the one, with their seemingly infinite capacity for self delusion, they claim addresses issues of voter fraud.
--Hiram
You mentioned vouching. I'm an election judge and go to nursing homes to assist permanent residents of those facilities in voting via absentee ballot. Vouching is also common for those in assisted living and other senior housing. Many of these people, who have voted for dozens of years, would find it quite difficult to get MN ID cards.
As to this fraud canard, Norm Coleman's own recount attorneys could not find fraud in his election loss.
But for sake of discussion, it's probably safe to assume there is some nominal level of fraud, as there are error rates in virtually every system created by humans. And there will be under Voter ID also.
Most importantly, this purposefully vague amendment will disenfranchise far more legitimate voters than it will stop illegal voters. I don't believe that should be enshrined in the MN Constitution. And it's hard to believe that people who purport to uphold the sanctity of voting would vote for an amendment that would change voting laws in unknown ways. "We'll figure it out after it passes" is not how Minnesotans should be voting.
Jackie,
Welcome back, we've missed you.
Now help me understand why the elderly folks do not have an ID? That is what has me stumped. They are receiving medicare benefits, may file taxes, they are checked in at the long term care facility, etc and yet they have no ID to verify who they are when someone asks?
As for it ending up on an amendment, it seems the Republicans felt they were getting no where with their fellow politicians on election reform, so they decided to ask the people what they thought?
Hopefully through discussions like this, more people will actually understand what they are voting on.
I am putting together a list. Things Republicans believe contrary to the evidence. Here is a start:
"I know for a FACT that there are tens of thousands of fraudulent votes cast in Minnesota, but it doesn't matter because those votes counted. In the 30 states that have some form of voter ID, participation has gone UP"
When calculating a deficit, it's ok to leave out money you owe.
Actuaries of the future will invent insurance products that makes high risk insurance cheap and affordable.
Firing Big Bird will solve our deficit problems.
You can support insurance coverage for preexisting conditions, while opposing insurance coverage for conditions that are actually preexisting.
Kicking a problem down the road is an effective way of solving it.
That it makes sense to eliminate benefits to which we are entitled to pay for benefits to which we are not.
That Barack Obama was born in Kenya.
That you spend money, not when you write the check, but when the check is cashed.
That at some time in the future, it will be ok with people that they, or their parents, or their children will be denied medical care because they can't pay for it.
That if you pay for a war using a credit card, it doesn't cost you anything.
That the point of voter ID isn't to discourage people who historically vote Democratic from voting.
All of these things are things that are things that Republicans seem to believe without question. Republicans believe so many things without question. And a good number of them played a role in the near destruction of our economy brought about the last time Republicans were in charge, and will play a role in our national decision making if we let the Republicans back in.
--Hiram
John, to your point about the number of people who do not have a current "valid" photo ID, I'm sorry. I'm sorry that you believe the lies of Secretary of State Mark Ritchie. Okay, it isn't a lie to suspect that many Minnesotans do not have an acceptable ID RIGHT NOW. It is highly deceptive, however, especially when posted on the officially nonpartisan top election official's website, because this has absolutely no bearing on the number of people who could OBTAIN a valid ID prior to the next election or shortly thereafter.
Let us not forget that the only reason this is before the voters at all is because hyper partisan Gov. Mark Dayton vetoed the original ballot measure passed by the legislature, which addressed all of these little details and more. For example, it would have closed the loophole which currently ENCOURAGES college students to vote twice. Instead of that sweeping reform, we will get only a small piece of it, so the Democrats can continue to cheat in every election.
J. Ewing
Hiram, the only way your list of things "Republicans believe contrary to the evidence" can be accurate is by twisting words far beyond their common meaning. For example: "when calculating a deficit it's okay to leave out money you owe" is absolutely correct. The deficit is the difference between spending and revenues in a given fiscal year (of a government; in a business it would be called a "loss"). The DEBT is the accumulation of these deficits PLUS the money you owe. Too bad you won't live long enough to pay it back, and neither will your great-great-grandchildren. Especially if Obamacare is still around (reference "Logan's Run").
J. Ewing
Scott Wood had this to say at MPP about the original GOP bill.
"The proposed amendment leaves the details up to the next legislature, and nobody knows what the outcome of that would be, but let's look at the bill the Republicans passed last year (which got vetoed, leading to the amendment proposal) to see one possibility: Revisor Bill Details
See 204C.10, subdivision 2, which lists the acceptable forms of identification. A passport isn't on the list (nor is a school ID), likely because it doesn't have the voter's address on it. The requirement for the ID to list the "voter's current address of residence in the precinct" will also effectively stop many students from voting in the precinct where they attend school, which is currently permitted (though I guess you dismiss students as part of the undesirable "fringe" to be disenfranchised).
Also see line 6.32 -- in order to get a special voter identification card, you need to present photo identification (but not necessarily the same kind as would be valid for voting), or claim a religious objection under penalty of perjury. You don't even need to do that to get a full non-enhanced state ID (though getting one of those requires a fee). I suspect that a court might take a dim view of a free ID being harder to get than a non-free ID.
For your final question, do you really think it's appropriate to be segmenting people into "main stream" and "fringe" voters? An eligible voter is an eligible voter, regardless of what you think of their life situation. All eligible voters should be encouraged to vote.
Will it sway elections? Some elections are close, others aren't. In a close election both sides need whatever votes they can get (legitimately, of course), and the perception is that the people who have a problem meeting this new requirement are disproportionately DFL voters, which is believed to be why the Republicans are pushing this so hard. But regardless of whether an election is close or who the affected people are likely to vote for, we should not be instituting measures that suppress more legitimate votes than illegitimate votes. The end result of that would be an election that less accurately reflects the will of eligible voters as a whole."
Here was my response.
"I agree that it will be interesting to see the details that will be resolved if it passes. Hopefully having Dayton as the Governor will mean that Voter ID is just what it says. (Voter ID) Not proof of residency, since that should be part of the registration process.
I think the students should be able to and should be voting where ever their legal residence is via absentee ballot. Not necessarily where they are going to school. (details, details)"
The deficit is the difference between spending and revenues in a given fiscal year (of a government; in a business it would be called a "loss").
I was referring here to Republican claims of a surplus. There is indeed a surplus if you ignore the tobacco bonds, and the school shift. You can't do those things and get a real understanding of the state's finances. But you can do those things and maybe improve your chances of getting reelected. A lot of the financial mess we are in is the result of Republicans deceiving themselves and others about how finances work.
One real measure of the cost of Republican self deception is the interest costs we have to pay for those off the book loans. I think of those as indirect contribution to Republican campaign committees from the public.
--Hiram
I have actually talked GOP legislators about this sort of thing. They explain it in terms of cash based accounting. There isn't anything particularly wrong with this unless it's used to ignore the obligations you have accrued but aren't actually due. GOP legislatures do that, and that's why they are able to claim a surplus that looking at the accounting isn't really there, or perhaps in the alternative, doesn't mean what you might think it means.
It's like this. Let's say you have more money in your checking account at the end of the pay period than you expected. That's great news right? Only if the liabilities are fully accounted for. Maybe one of your automatic deductions didn't get through. Maybe you ignored a bill. As a state, we chose to ignore a bill, part of the costs of our school, and in addition we took out a loan from a friendly neighborhood loan shark, which appears on the books now as an asset, but appears as a liability on a different set of books, the Republicans don't want us to ask too many questions about. Certainly not until the election is over.
--Hiram
hiram, our problem is that you are looking at the State budget, which has a balanced budget requirement, and I am considering the federal budget, which does not. The Federal government is therefore the only one that can really run a deficit. The State government, you are correct, uses accounting gimmicks to get to "balance" (and not run a deficit that would be illegal) but Republicans aren't any more to blame than Democrats. Republicans tried to repay part of the education shift in the last session, but Dayton refused. In the budget session last year, Republicans suggested a 20% shift to get to balance, Dayton and the dems wanted a 50% shift! They compromised on 70% (I think). The correct shift was zero, but if there was a wrong here, who was more in the wrong?
J. Ewing
our problem is that you are looking at the State budget, which has a balanced budget requirement, and I am considering the federal budget, which does not. The Federal government is therefore the only one that can really run a deficit.
Just because the state shouldn't run a deficit doesn't mean it doesn't. In real terms, the state borrowed money from the schools to pay operating costs. That's operating at a deficit, it's just that the liability happens to be off the books. That kind of accounting is common in the private sector where it often results in massive bankruptcies. See Enron. I suppose it's what Republicans mean when they say they want to run the state like a business.
Republicans wanted to move some money from one account to another, another financial tactic they learned from the private sector no doubt, but that's just a form of dressing up the balance sheet. It makes no substantive difference.
--Hiram
The thing you have to know about Republicans is that they don't care about deficits. They don't care about spending really. When in office, they engage in massive spending increases, and never raise the issue of deficit spending. Today, fierce as their public opposition limiting deficit spending, they don't actually support limiting are spending to any significant degree. They content themselves with talk of eliminating Big Bird's modest stipend, perhaps the greatest single example of the amazing capacity for self delusion I have seen from Republicans within the last week or so.
State-wise, Republican budgeting is all about smoke and mirrors, along with many of the same tactics they want to import from the private sector they so idolize, the very ones CEO's use to deceive investors and Wall Street. They want to pretend a liability doesn't exist if it isn't currently due. They want to pretend that shifting money from one account to another is something other than a high risk shell game. They want to run a campaign on a platform claiming everything is hunky dory in November, knowing full well, knowing just as well as we do, that everything collapses in January. And they don't want anyone to notice.
==Hiram
It seems I remember the MN Republicans trying to pass some stuff that would have reduced government spending significantly, or at least increased government effectiveness.
Remember the attempts to eliminate tenure for Teachers. The attempt to make us a Right to Work state. Both of which could significantly reduce what we pay for Public employees, Healthcare, etc. Yet the Democrats keep saying NO, since they want to keep buying these Votes with our tax dollars.
My point was simply that one can not reduce government costs while continually over paying all of the employees that it pays... And protecting the jobs of poor performers. Both in the Private and Public sector.
It seems I remember the MN Republicans trying to pass some stuff that would have reduced government spending significantly, or at least increased government effectiveness.
I just don't have the same recollection. In terms of deficit spending in the area of education, they are for things that add to costs like vouchers and charter schools. I think some Republicans would like to limit health care spending on the poor, but that's a false savings because someone ends up footing the bill. Again, in terms of education Republican policy is to shift liabilities off the books, a trick they learned from businessmen they so admire. Republicans love to tell us they want to run government like a business. Somehow they forget to tell us that the the business they want government to run like is Enron.
--Hiram
My point was simply that one can not reduce government costs while continually over paying all of the employees that it pays.
Well, they could. Relatively little money of the government spends is spent on wages for government employees. The state has a budget of about 35 billion bucks or so. If we fired every state employee, we would save about a billion bucks or so. That would still leave us with a deficit next year.
--Hiram
"they are for things that add to costs like vouchers and charter schools. "- hiram
Sorry, but you are wrong. Vouchers are ALWAYS for less money than the government pays for a public school student (unless you use my Universal Voucher plan), and charter schools, if they are public, get no more than the public schools do. Besides, "if you think that education is expensive, try ignorance." The only reason we have these alternative schools is because our public schools are failing so many.
J. Ewing
And hiram, do you remember that Dayton demanded a 50% school funding shift, much higher than the Republicans wanted? Who is the party of education, again?
J. Ewing
MN Budget Pie Charts
Rough math:
Based on RAS info: 80% of $30 Billion goes to personnel costs (ie Teachers, Bus Drivers, Healthcare providers, DOT personnel, Construction Workers, Bureaucrats, Politicians, etc) This equals ~$24 Billion.
If the Unions are increasing their total compensation, lowering the effectiveness and our costs by only 10% (which is likely low), they are costing us $2.4 Billion extra per year. I hope there are some big benefits for these higher taxes.
How's this for a good example... The gov't mandates that Contractor's pay a certain amount to their employees when the are working on State jobs. DOT Wage Mandate What are we thinking?
Vouchers are ALWAYS for less money than the government pays for a public school student
Less money or not, it's additional money. The government does and should finance private schools, but never at the cost of funding to public schools. That's a total non starter.
Democrats aren't in favor of funding shifts. They merely accept them as an accommodation to the Republican refusal to pay money they owe.
--Hiram
Of course they should defund Public schools if the Parents and Students choose other educational options.
They will have fewer students, they sure won't need as much money.
It looks like here is what J referenced. Capitol Chatter And it seems he is correct, GOP wanted to pay our debt and Dayton vetoed it...
Of course they should defund Public schools if the Parents and Students choose other educational options.
Of course they shouldn't. I think private schools are fine. But the moment they are used to attack public schools, that's pretty much it for them. I will strongly oppose existing funding for private schools the moment private schools take away the funding for public schools.
And I doubt very many private schools could exist without taxpayer dollars.
--Hiram
Exactly what tax dollars do you think "Private" schools get? I think our local Private, "Providence Academy", looks like it is doing just fine.
Charters get Public Funding, but they are Public schools. And of course the funding follows the student to them. That is why the traditional schools try to keep them out.
I must be missing something here.
Transportation, nursing services, special education services textbooks. they get lots of stuff.
Took a look at a the link to Providence Academy. Couldn't find the tab linking to their financial statements. Maybe that's what was missing.
--Hiram
Let's repeat, they are a Privately funded and owned institution. They are not required to share their finances... Therefore no tab.
Here are some more links. I see nothing to support your allegation that tax dollars are being spent in Private Schools. Do you have a source that backs up your statements?
MN State Voucher History
MN School Funding Guide
They are not required to share their finances
My point is not that they are required to share their finances, my point is that for some reason we don't know they don't. But that doesn't mean we can't talk about their finances to fill in the picture they choose to leave blank.
Schools like Providence Academy get a lot of money from the state. For some reason they choose not to discuss it, leaving the rest of us with the impression that they don't.
--Hiram
Hiraam,
So many allegtions with no proof. You should be able find a record on the state side. They are public and required to show their finances.
Aid for Nonpublic School Students
Books, Materials, Tests, Health Services, Guidance, and Counseling. School districts are required to
provide nonpublic school pupils with textbooks, individualized instructional materials, and standardized
tests, all of which must be secular in nature and cannot be used for religious instruction or worship. In
addition, a district must provide the same health services to pupils of nonpublic schools as it provides to
public school pupils. Nonpublic secondary pupils must also be offered guidance and counseling services
by the public secondary schools. The state reimburses districts for their costs up to the amount of the
statewide average expenditure per pupil (determined as of February 1 of the preceding school year) times
the number of nonpublic school pupils served, with an inflation adjustment equal to the percent of
increase in the general education revenue program formula allowance (adjusted for the $415 roll-in) from
the second preceding school year. For fiscal year 2012, the reimbursement rates are set at 100 percent of
the statewide average expenditures per pupil unit, which are as follows: for textbooks, $81.40; for health
services, $58.29; and for guidance and counseling, $203.65.
(Minn. Stat. §§ 123B.40-123B.43)
The state also pays for special education programs for private schools.
--Hiram
No computer right now, I'll review source later.
It sounds like most of this is to meet the State and Federal laws. Funding that is allocated to children by law to partially cover the mandates.
Any ID how many dollars per student this averages?
"It sounds like most of this is to meet the State and Federal laws. Funding that is allocated to children by law to partially cover the mandates."
Books, Materials, Tests, Health Services, Guidance, and Counseling. And of course, let's not forget the real biggie, Special Education services. But no, private schools don't provide things like books and what not, because they are required to by the state and federal government, they provide these things because that's what schools do.
Special education, I will note, is a federal mandate, an extremely expensive one.
Private schools don't like to talk about the aid they receive from taxpayers, one reason perhaps why they don't volunteer much information about their finances. But I also suspect that an awareness of how dependent they are combined with an understanding that if they really start competing with public schools, public schools would start competing right back, is why you both don't hear about taxpayer support to private schools but also why you don't hear private school advocates advocating vouchers. They leave that to others.
I have actually met the private school lobbyist. Very nice guy, very interested in getting along, very much in the "we are all in this together" mode. You don't hear him talk about how he wants to take away money from public schools.
--Hiram
So no rough number? It seems pretty small except the special ed. Especially compared to the $12,000 per student that goes to the publics. Or the $15000 in tuition at this caliber of school. More later.
I asked a friend of mine who is on a board for a local Private school. My quick interpretation of what they said was that the Public aid to the school is ~$150 per student per yr. Or about 3% of their cost per student.
Special Ed & Food subsidy is above this I think, since it always follows the kids. Even in Daycare / Preschool.
If this is typical, I am not sure I would say that non-Publics would be too concerned with your fighting their public funding.
Especially if some of the Government requirements went away with it. And they would probably be ecstatic if parents were given an $11,000 / student voucher that could be used at any school.
I am not a big supporter of vouchers because I worry about the problems it may cause for the most challenged / unlucky students. G2A Voucher Disc
I'll do some more research and probably re-visit this in a post of its own.
If you find out how Private's can get the big Public bucks you alluded to, please tell me. My friend would likely appreciate the info.
Post a Comment