Democrats: "School choice bills"? Nah, we won't allow that." Leftist rag explains why

Rural K-12 schools are still fairly good, mainly because they don't put up with much crap from thug students.  But as everyone should realize by now, many big-city schools--especially in Democrat-ruled states--teach very little that's needed, and are cesspools of violence.

As a direct result, more parents are putting their kids in private schools, where "wokie" school board crazies can't force teachers to teach "critical race theory" or the wonders of trannies.

Wealthy parents have always sent their precious kids to private schools.  But for less-wealthy parents the extra cost is a real hardship.  And as every young American should know, even if you don't have kids, or your kids are in a private school, many parents still pay thousands of dollars a year in taxes to fund the public-school system, with their $350,000-a-year superintendents of big-city schools and their $100-million-dollar palaces of "learning."

The fact that everyone pays for public schools even if your kids go to a private school--has been driving some states to consider "school choice" laws, which would refund some fraction of taxes back to parents who send their kids to private schools.

As you already guessed, Democrats absolutely HATE "school choice" bills with a passion.  They claim their opposition is based on reason: because it takes funds away from public schools.  And "everyone knows" schools need more money.  Always.  

Pro-school-choice states have tried responding to this objection by drafting bills that would NOT reduce funds to public schools, but that doesn't appease Democrats--because the real reason for their opposition is that school choice would weaken the destroyers' monopoly on education.

For those who don't understand that:  Democrat pols are absolutely hell-bent on jamming "critical race theory" and the joys of changing a kids' "gender," and the wonders of socialism, and claims that the U.S. has always been evil, down the throats of your kids.  They do that by controlling school boards and curricula.  

Obviously kids who go to private schools might be beyond their reach--which is the real reason for their screaming opposition.

Well, that and the fact that members of a teachers' union vote almost totally Democrat.  So if you're a Democrat pol, gotta please the teachers' unions if you wanna keep your cushy job.

SO...the Texas senate--majority GOP--just passed a school-choice bill.  But the Democrat-controlled House has already voted for an amendment banning school choice, so the bill won't pass there.  So what I want to show you is the cunning arguments against school choice being pushed by a total leftist website and mag called "Texas Tribune."
===

A bill that would create a program to let parents use state funds to pay for private schools — a longtime conservative goal, a top cause of Gov. Greg Abbott--

Stop right there.  Note the phrasing: bill "would let parents use state funds to pay for private schools," eh?  Heaven forbid that the Left mention that the state collects taxes from every homeowner to fund public schools, and that parents who put their kid in a private school reduce the expense of public schools.  See, the liberals who run the Texas Tribune don't care about being even-handed about this.

The Senate vote came the same day the House approved a budget amendment opposing school vouchers — the first indication of the tough road ahead for the proposal.

The bill was not popular among teacher groups, which said educators deserved an across-the-board pay raise, or at least a higher one-time bonus to make up for inflation.

SB 8, also a priority of Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, would establish an education savings account program, which would give parents who opt out of the public school system up to $8,000 in taxpayer money per student each year. These funds could be used to pay for a child’s private schooling and other educational expenses, such as textbooks or tutoring.

Now here's one of the biggest objections by Dems:

The bill would also *severely restrict classroom lessons, campus activities and educator guidance about sexual orientation and gender identity* in public and charter schools up to 12th grade.

Could it be any more clear?  The Dems want to hold on to their power to push kids way under 18 to go tranny.  They do that by telling kids how totally, utterly fabulous it is, beginning at age 5.  Keep up the propaganda for a decade, and by age 15 LOTS of confused, conflicted kids are claiming they want to change gender.

[The bill's sponsor] faced questions about whether the state could hold private schools accountable over student test scores, and how the program could be considered a choice for every parent if private schools aren’t required to accept every child.

This is a cunning mislead: If you raise your kid to not be a thug, no problem.  So don't raise a thug, eh?  Nah, dat put too much of a burden on parents.  Can't have that, eh?

[A Dem senator] said there weren’t enough measures in place to make sure funds weren’t misused *and to hold private schools accountable over test scores.*

Say, senator, what happens to public schools that have crappy test scores, eh?  Do those superintendents and principals have their pay cut?  "Oh my heavens NO!"  And yet suddenly you pretend to be gravely concerned that this bill doesn't give the state the right to punish private schools if they have low test scores?  Hmmm...sounds like hypocrisy.

The big question is whether the bill would pass in the House, where Democrats and rural Republicans have often banded together against any measure that would send public dollars to private schools.

The House voted 86-52 against school vouchers.

The Texas House even banned "education savings accounts," which are a way of making it less expensive for parents to fund future private-school costs.  Hey, can't allow THAT, eh?  Cuz...you know.

Democrats and rural Republicans oppose education savings accounts because they fear they could take away money from their local school districts. Since Texas funds school districts based on attendance, any student that leaves a school district would result in less money.

Rural school leaders say they remain opposed to any voucher-like program, regardless of how long any bill  promises to maintain full funding of rural schools, because eventually that funding will end.

“Five years still has an end date on it, doesn’t it?” said Michael Lee, the executive director of the Texas Association of Rural Schools.  “So you extended it three years, you still have the same issue.”

Lee said he’d rather the Legislature prioritize funding for school safety initiatives rather than a school choice program.

This is a cunning mislead.  "I'd rather spend that same amount on..."  It's bullshit.  Throw up a wonderful goal to get people to think "Yeah, dat bettah!"   Classic technique.

One superintendent said he is against anything that would take money away from public schools that are already struggling with enrollment declines.<<

Um...why do ya think enrollment in public schools is declining, eh?  Could that be some carefully camouflaged sign that growing numbers of parents don't like your product?

Nah, must be a plot by right-wing extremists who want to harm their own children, right?

Source.

https://www.texastribune.org/2023/04/06/texas-legislature-education-savings-accounts/