tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post8761804104181970758..comments2023-11-03T06:35:48.003-05:00Comments on Shark and Shepherd: Robin Vos' proposed amendment to choice funding formula would not "gut" public schoolsRick Esenberghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-30343035757514650682016-03-02T19:32:29.726-06:002016-03-02T19:32:29.726-06:00I think you better take a closer look at the pictu...I think you better take a closer look at the picture. It's not WC Fields. Beyond that, your complaint should be directed to RW. I don't publish that website or place images on it. I sell them articles. I don't "grab" their images off of the internet or otherwise decide or participate on what images they post. So ask them. My guess - giving that RW is run by one of the largest media conglomerated in the country - that you will turn out to be wrong. You see, some images are in the public domain. Others can be licensed. In this case, the photograph - if it was taken before July 1 1945 - which (given the reason for the photograph) I suspect it was - then it was almost certainly in the public domain. I could explain why but since I didn't choose it or publish it, the question is not for me.Rick Esenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-4810939818628880052016-03-02T16:37:11.221-06:002016-03-02T16:37:11.221-06:00You seem to be in violation of copyright law over ...You seem to be in violation of copyright law over on Right WI. It's highly unlikely either you or the Rt WI folks took that photo of WC Fields, or have any legal right to it. Much more likely you grabbed it off the Internet like ignorant people who aren't big deal law professors. Theoretically you would know better, but then again (like some of your pals) you may only obey the laws you find personally convenient.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-86639487581532785332016-02-17T20:15:28.065-06:002016-02-17T20:15:28.065-06:00I think the notion that 70% of voucher students wi...I think the notion that 70% of voucher students will already be in private schools as the program expands is unlikely. If eligibility remains at poverty level, I just don't think that there are that many poor kids on scholarship. And if there are, I have not heard the Democrats in this state often admit that they don't want to support private outreach to the poor. I've never heard, for example, that food aid or expanded subsidies for medical care need to be discounted in some way because it displaces - or augments - private charity.<br /><br />But putting that aside, a bump in the revenue limit will still leave districts richer than they were and this will be even more true if the kids were never in the district to begin with. To be sure, the Vos amendment may phase in the bonus but just as the hit comes up front, the loss of the revenue trails the loss of that hit. <br /><br />I can only comment on what has been discussed in the press and I think that discussion has been incomplete. As for the rules of the Assembly, I'm not sure they rise to the level of the rule of law but they are important. But that wasn't the issue I was addressing. If, however, I wanted to rail against non-germane amendments, I think I'd need to hire more help, wouldn't I?<br /><br />Rick Esenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-20480758158355532002016-02-17T17:14:40.997-06:002016-02-17T17:14:40.997-06:00Your analysis ignores the fact that 70+% of the ki...Your analysis ignores the fact that 70+% of the kids entering the voucher program are not moving from a public school to a voucher school. They are already in the voucher school and are merely switching the tuition-payer to the local school district.<br /><br />You imply that adding them to the public school membership count for a voucher student's first year represents a windfall for the district, since the levy limit amount per child is greater than the voucher payment.<br /><br />That's not the case with a student already in the voucher program. When a district's membership increases, the increase in "count" is phased in over three years. In other words, a district may only be permitted to levy for 1/3 of the cost of the student but must lay out $7000+ for each student. This is a revenue loss to the district.<br /><br />You speak authoritatively about what is in the Speaker's amendment. The amendment the Speaker shopped in committee has been dumped, according to press reports. With the bill being voted upon tomorrow in the Assembly, hopefully the shroud will be lifted from the revised amendment so that it can be vetted before it is adopted.<br /><br />Assembly Bill 751 deals with technical fixes for the special education voucher program, while the first two versions of the amendment deal with open enrollment. The Speaker's amendment isn't even remotely germane to the original bill under the rules of the Assembly. Vastly expanding the bill at the last minute at the whim of the presiding officer sets a very dangerous precedent, as it eviscerates the rule of law. Surely a conservative such as yourself should see the follow in such a course.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com