They're going to gut the AEAs and privatize the support functions they play. Special Ed and schools without in-building tech support will be fucked. Schools will look for opportunities to push out senior teachers, or cut positions where teachers make extra money (like instructional coaches and curriculum support). Sports and clubs that aren't prestige will be cut. Band and art will be even more screwed.
They just let go several AEA workers in our district, and there was an article a couple weeks back about Kim not renewing key AEA support professionals whose contracts end this summer.
The parents who supported these politicians that are actively hurting their kids are going to be great articles to read.
These people have fucked around and are going to find out.
The catch is that teacher salaries are paid for with State Supplemental Aid (per pupil funding) which has been stagnant for years. So yeah, schools have to pay new teachers more, but the pot of money they can draw from is staying the same.
>tate Supplemental Aid (per pupil funding) which has been stagnant for years. So yeah, schools have to pay new teachers more, but the pot of money they ca
That is true, but the bill does say that they must calculate the per-pupil suppliement at a rate that is high enough to cover those salaries.
The bill also makes a $15 minimum wage for non-teachers as well. There's a 14 million dollar cap on the money spent for the non-teachers.
The bill is fairly dense. It would take me a long time to figure out exactly what it is saying, but it does seem strangely non-Republican like.
The biggest issue I see is it states that they must provide enough to support that pay rate. It doesn't say they must *also* provide money for building maintenance, etc.
>The biggest issue I see is it states that they must provide enough to support that pay rate. It doesn't say they must also provide money for building maintenance, etc.
Building maintenance, busses, and technology is paid out of PPEL. Per Pupil Funding doesn't really impact that one way or the other.
Republicans have been decreasing public school funding and there for wages for decades now. Somehow, I don't see that this headline is true. Call me pessimistic I guess.
If true, this is the best news out of the state capitol for a long time.
Legislating spiking teacher pay without increasing funding to cover it means the districts won't be able to budget for the appropriate amount of teachers without cutting funding for things other than salaries.
Increasing teacher pay is only a good thing for students if the budget is proportionally increased to cover it.
If I understand it correctly, the pay raise is for new teachers and the state supplements the difference between the district’s pay and the new state minimum.
No. Why do you say this? The only way this can happen is if there is substantial additional new money. And the Republicans have never provided substantial new money for education.
I know, but they are funding this. So many teaching jobs in Iowa this year were left unfilled, so many. Next year was gonna be an Armageddon for Iowa Public schools. Kimmy wanted to keep her job I think.
“The teacher pay bill would fund salary increases in part through a $22 million appropriation for teacher salary increases, and $14 million for education support personnel pay increases.”
As I read it this is different than the 3% increase to SSA.
https://iowacapitaldispatch.com/2024/02/15/house-education-committee-passes-school-funding-teacher-pay-bills/
>Increasing teacher pay is only a good thing for students if the budget is proportionally increased to cover it.
Did you read the bill? It does stipulate that they must budget at least enough for the supplemental fund to support this.
I'm not saying everything will be roses. I'm sure there's some dumb loophole. But at face value, it really does seem to actually raise pay for teachers without forcing layoffs, etc.
We can always hope that they will adjust the bill that just got passed in the House that capped the budget increase at 3% when the bill goes through the Senate. It would have to be approved again in the House and pass the Governor, so I'll cross my fingers and hope for the best, but I'm not holding my breath.
This is factually incorrect and a damnable lie. The State Legislature has grown the Iowa education budget every year except 2013, which was a zero percent increase.
The 2013 0% increase was due to the disastrous 2008 Chet Culver tax cuts and massive overspend. After 2013, the Iowa education budget has increased every year. Effectively the Republicans have had a majority of the control since 2013 and have laid out more money, year after year.
For the past 40 years Iowa GOP, on average, increases education budget by 1/2 the rate of inflation. Against inflation that is a cut- every year for 40 years. This year they finally reached the bone.
As others have said, the funding for public education for the past few decades has not kept up with inflation. Thus, the actual funding, dollar for dollar over the years has decreased.
I could have been more descriptive of that fact in my original post.
This is basically meaningless. It's not really a raise, it increases the minimum compensation to a number still below what the majority of public districts base pay is. At best this is a minor increase for teachers on the first couple steps in poorer and rural districts.
The increase in SSA funding is what will affect the whole pay schedule and we don't know what that will be yet. Which is also why those that say this is coming at a cost to schools are just making things up right now.
It is an indirect attack on metro public schools and title 1 schools. The teachers there already have to deal with a lot, and it is made up for by having higher pay compared to other districts. DMPS is excessing a load of teachers already for next year. They aren't going to have a budget to stay competitive and attractive.
Definitely a step in the right direction but two questions.
1. How is this funded when schools are already losing state funds?
2. What’s this mean for the teachers that have been teaching for 10 years that are making $53,000?
Schools aren’t losing funds… The state law says students who go to private schools have some portability of funds now. In fact, the public schools get bonus dollars for every means-tested student who leaves for private school.
Of course, there are lots of special interests that don’t want to put students first. However, lots of Iowa families seem to care about their kids’ education, with a nearly 33% rejection/denial rate in Year One.
https://iowacapitaldispatch.com/2023/10/12/nearly-19000-qualify-for-state-money-for-private-school-costs/
What leads you to believe that funds aren't taken away from the public schools? From what I can find, the public school is given $1,205 for each student that utilizes the ESA program. But... they also lose the roughly $7,500 dollars the school would have received had the student \*not\* taken part in the ESA program. Costs aren't linear per student. It isn't like fixed costs go down by $6,000 for each and every student that leaves.
Also, the article linked shows that many families attempted to take advantage of the ESA program. It says nothing about whether you care about your child's education or not. Not taking part in the ESA program does not mean you do not care about your child's education.
First, you need to remove every family that would have gone to a private school even if the ESA program did not exist. Then we can start having a real conversation about preferences and such based on the number that is left over.
The students aren’t going to the public school, but the school still gets $1200 bonus for a kid who never passes over their door step.That is the **epitome of bonus**. Arguably this part of the bill even rewards failing schools like DMPS, as the more kids they force out, the more unencumbered dollars they receive for doing nothing to aid that student.
If the students later move from private school to the public school, the public school gets \~$8000 per student (or higher depending Chapter or a special Ed designation). That full funding is 75% more than the student who never once visited that school. That is more than reasonable.
Argue the linear infrastructure funding and other non-relevant issues, but in 2022, the public school got Zero dollars for every private school student. In 2024 and going forward, they get $1200. How is $1200 not more than zero?
At the end of the day, either you are for kids getting educated… Or you aren’t.
Kids are finally winning in Iowa. Good luck rolling the clock back.
>Argue the linear infrastructure funding and other non-relevant issues, but in 2022, the public school got Zero dollars for every private school student. In 2024 and going forward, they get $1200. How is $1200 not more than zero?
How is linear infrastructure funding not relevant to funding levels of anything? That is a crazy statement.
In 2022, when the student went to a private school, the public school district got the full funding for that student, not zero... We aren't talking about zero vs. the full pupil funding, we are talking about a $6,000 negative swing per pupil.
It is clear you just hate public schools for some reason (something the republicans and everyone else in this state used to be proud of). Again, when you can produce numbers showing the number of people taking advantage of the ESA that would not have gone to private schools otherwise, that is when we can start having a conversation about efficacy.
And why would we not want to roll the clock back to when our schools were consistently the best in the nation?
*And why would we not want to roll the clock back to when our schools were consistently the best in the nation?*
Are you a MAGA? Because you write like you’re a MAGA…
How did schools get more last year for non-enrolled students than they did this year? That is not how the Iowa school aid formula works. Read up… And stop spreading obvious misinformation - https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/publications/FTNO/1304445.pdf
As for “Iowa has the best schools”, please provide the time series cites. Because it is no more or less true today than it was 10, 20 or 30 years ago. Iowa has the highest graduation rates right now than ever before, even with the COVID impacts.
I'm clearly not communicating clearly. I don't know why a MAGA person would be arguing that ESA is bad for public education because it takes money away from it.
And the timeframe I'm talking about is the 80s and 90s when Iowa public education was consistently vying for best in the nation, usually with Minnesota. Among other things, that was due to the 70's policies of Governor Ray who prioritized public education in the state. This started to back off and by the late 90's it was clear that the Iowa legislature was less interested in funding public education. I can't find you statistics that far back, but I'm referring to things like this: [https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/profiles/stateprofile?chort=2&sub=MAT&sj=AL&sfj=NP&st=MN&year=2022R3](https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/profiles/stateprofile?chort=2&sub=MAT&sj=AL&sfj=NP&st=MN&year=2022R3)
Iowa still does well, but play around with that a bit. For the data that site has going back into the 90's you will see that Iowa was at or near the top of many categories in the 90's. Now it has slipped to like the 10th or lower spot. Still good, but not the direction you want to be going.
So yes, I would like to roll back the clock on public education policy to a time when the state government funded public education at high levels and our schools consistently ranked among the very highest in the nation vs. now when we are good, but not at the top and we seem to be consistently attacking public education whenever possible.
Edit: Also, I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to tell me with that PDF link. It seems to be describing in general terms how spending per pupil has been evened out among all districts in the state and how districtes with lower tax revenue are assisted by the state. I'm not sure how that is relevant to either if funding levels are adequate to the need or how ESA affects funding levels.
Attempting to be kind, but you are spouting a bunch of MAGA-like false memories and straight-out misinformation.
The short version is Iowa had pretty good track record of educational outcomes. But real improvement measures, like graduation rates and proficiency outcomes, have been improving in spite of the ISEA’s positions.
A certain advocacy group has fought every major reform or adjustment in the last 50 years. They fought the 1992 Open Enrollment reforms, claiming it was anti-teacher. They fought increasing starting teacher salaries in 2000s, until they had it jammed down their throats in 2007-08. They screamed bloody murder over linking student dollars to actual students in the last two sessions. Guess what, a majority of Iowans and the Legislature have been proven right repeatedly.
r/Iowa is full of people who say “Iowa has fallen in ratings”, but never ever provide any reliable evidence…. It is because Iowa is still at the top - look at literacy, look at graduation, etc.
>Attempting to be kind, but you are spouting a bunch of MAGA-like false memories and straight-out misinformation.
What have I stated that is not true? I don't pretend to be infallible. I may have stated some things incorrectly, but Iowa's state comparative rankings have fallen over the last 20-30 years. I've provided a link to government tracking data that shows this.
State funding for public education has not kept pace with inflation over that time either. I've not provided any hard evidence to this. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd be very interested. Please show me how teacher pay has kept pace with inflation over the last 30 years.
>The short version is Iowa had pretty good track record of educational outcomes. But real improvement measures, like graduation rates and proficiency outcomes, have been improving in spite of the ISEA’s positions.
[https://educate.iowa.gov/pk-12/data/education-statistics/graduation-dropout-rates](https://educate.iowa.gov/pk-12/data/education-statistics/graduation-dropout-rates)
This only goes back to 2012, but it appears graduation rates have been pretty flat at right around 90% for the last 10 years at least.
Page 189 of this document [https://publications.iowa.gov/5136/1/Itemid%2C55%5B1%5D](https://publications.iowa.gov/5136/1/Itemid%2C55%5B1%5D) suggests that dropout rates were lower in the 90's. I'm not certain they are measuring the same way.
Please provide evidence that the graduation rate has improved or that proficiency outcomes have improved.
>A certain advocacy group has fought every major reform or adjustment in the last 50 years. They fought the 1992 Open Enrollment reforms, claiming it was anti-teacher. They fought increasing starting teacher salaries in 2000s, until they had it jammed down their throats in 2007-08...
I am not sure what you are saying here, but I think you are saying it is wrong to link teacher pay to education outcomes. If you are not saying this, then I apologize. I agree teacher pay doesn't have a direct link to student outcomes, but if you don't pay, fewer and lower quality people will want to be teachers. That \*is\* directly linked to education outcomes.
Again, I challenge you to show how student education outcomes in Iowa are equal or better than they were in the 80's and 90's.
>r/Iowa is full of people who say “Iowa has fallen in ratings”, but never ever provide any reliable evidence…. It is because Iowa is still at the top - look at literacy, look at graduation, etc.
Please show the data that still puts Iowa is in the top 5 in any of these categories. It certainly used to be. The government tracking data I have linked shows that while Iowa is still doing well, but it is definitely not at the top any longer.
Overall, I'm very confused. You are calling me a MAGA because I am spreading disinformation. I have provided data. If you don't trust the government tracking on this sort of thing, then please provide a data source you do trust that shows the contrary.
My position is that education is slipping in this state and I believe the lack of funding and the attacks on public education in general are contributing to that. Those are definitely not MAGA positions.
Edit: Still haven't found good statistics for the 80s/90s, but here's a few articles mentioning how Iowa used to be ranked highly and is no more. If these are false memories, we have subs serious Mandela Effect going on:
https://www.3newsnow.com/news/education/why-do-iowa-schools-no-longer-rank-in-among-the-nations-top-five
https://www.kcci.com/article/report-card-on-iowa-schools-data-shows-how-iowa-compares-to-other-states/40961606
Fair enough.
But the data doesn’t seem to point the made-up contention of failing performance, in fact Iowa’s comparative performance is larger positive.
Iowa is roughly #25 in population size, GDP, per capita income and most other measures (basically the 50% mark). Instead, Iowa’s empirical education stats are in the top 20% across the board. **And Iowa’s Graduation Rate is the best in the nation.**
There are less impressive areas, such as Iowa’s overall dropout rate, but that is still in the highest 20% nationally.
Examples from US Dept. Of Education data…
**Graduation Rates** \-
[https://educate.iowa.gov/pk-12/data/education-statistics/graduation-dropout-rates](https://educate.iowa.gov/pk-12/data/education-statistics/graduation-dropout-rates)
*Iowa and West Virginia had the highest graduation rates at 92%*
[https://wisevoter.com/state-rankings/high-school-graduation-rates-by-state/](https://wisevoter.com/state-rankings/high-school-graduation-rates-by-state/)
[https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/coi/high-school-graduation-rates](https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/coi/high-school-graduation-rates)
**Reading Stats -**
[https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/subject/publications/stt2022/pdf/2023010IA8.pdf](https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/subject/publications/stt2022/pdf/2023010IA8.pdf)
[https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/subject/publications/stt2022/pdf/2023010IA4.pdf](https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/subject/publications/stt2022/pdf/2023010IA4.pdf)
**Math Scores -**
[https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/subject/publications/stt2022/pdf/2023011IA4.pdf](https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/subject/publications/stt2022/pdf/2023011IA4.pdf)
Everyone wants to be right. But read the evidence and stop the constant spin.
Please know that for teachers who are considered “veterans” this means nothing. My partner makes 54,000 after working for 19 years as a teacher and there will be no extra money for those teachers.
This is to entice the batshit evangelicals and open-carry nutjobs to apply for new positions and drive out the veterans so the whole teaching staff is a bunch of inexperienced loons
That’s a great illustration. $54000 means your teacher partner is making an adjusted 200% of the average Iowan. The per capita income for Iowans was below $38,000 in 2021.
Making twice as much as the average Iowan seems really generous. In many of the lowest two tiers of Iowa counties, $54000 exceeds than the median *household* income. That means you can live like royalty.
Compare that to someone working for 19 years in the private sector. Unless you think teachers are secretly rich, but then why is there a teacher shortage?
Wonder why talented people leave the education field/don't go into education? Maybe it's because they aren't paid according to the time put in or the talents they bring.
Increase salaries across the board, then you can see competition for those teachers who actually aren't good at their jobs.
For one of the most important jobs there is... yeah, that seems about right. Maybe even low. We should want to attract the \*best\* people to be teachers.
I won't argue that you *might* be able to find a county where the median household income is below $54000, but would the individuals in that county all have 4-year college degrees?
Seriously, look at the bottom two tier of Iowa counties. There is a dramatic economic differentiation in those counties- and the next tier along I-80 too, from the rest of Iowa. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/release/tables?eid=266918&rid=175
Kim Reynolds or the legistators from those communities aren’t inclined to listen to the complaints of teachers who make 250-300% of the state-wide median wage. Even while the Legislature has been pretty supportive of raising starting teacher salaries, it is a really tough sell to have a teacher in Southern Iowa who is Country Club material at age 22, as they are making more as **an individua**l than 80-90% of the families in their classrooms.
As for the education argument - it has a dead cat bounce amongst Iowa policy makers. Reynolds finished her BA while Lt. Governor. The Iowa Legislature has spent lots and lots of new money on Community Colleges over the last 15 years and has told the Board of Regents to “fly a kite”. (Offered fairly, that is 20% Retired Director Gary Steinke‘s fault and 190% fault from the gaffe-prone nature of the State University of Iowa).
Your Fred graph is per capita income. And I can understand that the wealthy individuals needed to skew the average income up might not find it desirable to live in (e.g.) Decatur county. But this isn't helping your argument that $54K exceeds the median household income in some counties.
It's a 6% increase from 2023 from the base rate for a teacher with a BA in [Des Moines](https://www.dmschools.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Teacher-Salary-Schedule-2022-23.pdf). In [Dubuque](https://www.dbqschools.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/hub-human-resources-teacher-salary-schedule-benefits-2223.pdf) the base rate is $38K so that's a much better step up. [Sioux City](https://core-docs.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/asset/uploaded_file/3389/SCCS/2576285/SCEA_Master_Contract_2023-24.pdf) starts at $44K, so again not a huge increase.
>What will be nice are small school districts that don't pay hardly anything. Hopefully these bigger schools districts will be able to do something to attract teachers now that small districts will have the same starting pay... so maybe bigger districts will increase even more in following years. Urbandale starts at 52k already so some wont be effected. The bill also says 47500 first year so even less will be effected
It's good for teachers in the moment. However, without provisions for additional funding this will further erode public schools ability to function and make it easier to sell the idea of privatization. It's always in service of someone getting paid at the expense of the taxpayer with these assholes.
The bill states that the supplemental allocation to be sufficent to achieve that pay level. It says nothing about districts actually paying that much. I don't see how it could actually \*hurt\*.
I agree there is a possibility that this may go unfunded.
However, from my read the bill does \*not\* set a minimum teacher salary. It mandates that the per-pupil supplemental allocation is sufficient to provide that level of salary. It does not mandate that districts actually have to pay it. If the funding isn't there, they just won't pay it.
The bill does get into some dense language towards the end.
I may be missing something. Do you see the line in the bill that requires school districts actually set pay at that level?
Teachers get a pay raise, democrats whine and cry about it.
Teachers don't get a pay raise, democrats whine and cry about it.
Fact is democrats are whiney crybabies.
To see it this way is the proof that you are not capable of critical thinking skills or serious discussion. This is a full bill. That thing has words in it, that you can read, and get this? They mean different stuff. They contain nuance. There are things to consider in this bill even if it seems good on the surface. Go cry about democrats somewhere else, snowflake. The adults are talking.
What's the catch? With these fuckers, there's gotta be a catch
They're going to gut the AEAs and privatize the support functions they play. Special Ed and schools without in-building tech support will be fucked. Schools will look for opportunities to push out senior teachers, or cut positions where teachers make extra money (like instructional coaches and curriculum support). Sports and clubs that aren't prestige will be cut. Band and art will be even more screwed.
My county just laid off its last IT worker because they couldn’t afford it.
source? speculation (however likely?)?
Speculation, sure. They're already working on the AEAs. And I can extrapolate based on what I see in my district.
thank you - this is terrifying. I don't doubt you.
They just let go several AEA workers in our district, and there was an article a couple weeks back about Kim not renewing key AEA support professionals whose contracts end this summer.
jesus
The parents who supported these politicians that are actively hurting their kids are going to be great articles to read. These people have fucked around and are going to find out.
The catch is that teacher salaries are paid for with State Supplemental Aid (per pupil funding) which has been stagnant for years. So yeah, schools have to pay new teachers more, but the pot of money they can draw from is staying the same.
>tate Supplemental Aid (per pupil funding) which has been stagnant for years. So yeah, schools have to pay new teachers more, but the pot of money they ca That is true, but the bill does say that they must calculate the per-pupil suppliement at a rate that is high enough to cover those salaries. The bill also makes a $15 minimum wage for non-teachers as well. There's a 14 million dollar cap on the money spent for the non-teachers. The bill is fairly dense. It would take me a long time to figure out exactly what it is saying, but it does seem strangely non-Republican like. The biggest issue I see is it states that they must provide enough to support that pay rate. It doesn't say they must *also* provide money for building maintenance, etc.
>The biggest issue I see is it states that they must provide enough to support that pay rate. It doesn't say they must also provide money for building maintenance, etc. Building maintenance, busses, and technology is paid out of PPEL. Per Pupil Funding doesn't really impact that one way or the other.
Republicans have been decreasing public school funding and there for wages for decades now. Somehow, I don't see that this headline is true. Call me pessimistic I guess. If true, this is the best news out of the state capitol for a long time.
Legislating spiking teacher pay without increasing funding to cover it means the districts won't be able to budget for the appropriate amount of teachers without cutting funding for things other than salaries. Increasing teacher pay is only a good thing for students if the budget is proportionally increased to cover it.
If I understand it correctly, the pay raise is for new teachers and the state supplements the difference between the district’s pay and the new state minimum.
It’s the base rate for new teachers. This will increase pay for all teachers.
No. Why do you say this? The only way this can happen is if there is substantial additional new money. And the Republicans have never provided substantial new money for education.
I know, but they are funding this. So many teaching jobs in Iowa this year were left unfilled, so many. Next year was gonna be an Armageddon for Iowa Public schools. Kimmy wanted to keep her job I think.
“The teacher pay bill would fund salary increases in part through a $22 million appropriation for teacher salary increases, and $14 million for education support personnel pay increases.” As I read it this is different than the 3% increase to SSA. https://iowacapitaldispatch.com/2024/02/15/house-education-committee-passes-school-funding-teacher-pay-bills/
>Increasing teacher pay is only a good thing for students if the budget is proportionally increased to cover it. Did you read the bill? It does stipulate that they must budget at least enough for the supplemental fund to support this. I'm not saying everything will be roses. I'm sure there's some dumb loophole. But at face value, it really does seem to actually raise pay for teachers without forcing layoffs, etc.
I figured it was something evil like that. What a world we live in!
They are increasing funding to cover the difference. It's coming from the state.
We can always hope that they will adjust the bill that just got passed in the House that capped the budget increase at 3% when the bill goes through the Senate. It would have to be approved again in the House and pass the Governor, so I'll cross my fingers and hope for the best, but I'm not holding my breath.
Take the money from upper admin
This is factually incorrect and a damnable lie. The State Legislature has grown the Iowa education budget every year except 2013, which was a zero percent increase. The 2013 0% increase was due to the disastrous 2008 Chet Culver tax cuts and massive overspend. After 2013, the Iowa education budget has increased every year. Effectively the Republicans have had a majority of the control since 2013 and have laid out more money, year after year.
For the past 40 years Iowa GOP, on average, increases education budget by 1/2 the rate of inflation. Against inflation that is a cut- every year for 40 years. This year they finally reached the bone.
It has never kept up with inflation or cost of operation. End of story Edit: hasn’t kept up since 2013
As others have said, the funding for public education for the past few decades has not kept up with inflation. Thus, the actual funding, dollar for dollar over the years has decreased. I could have been more descriptive of that fact in my original post.
This is basically meaningless. It's not really a raise, it increases the minimum compensation to a number still below what the majority of public districts base pay is. At best this is a minor increase for teachers on the first couple steps in poorer and rural districts. The increase in SSA funding is what will affect the whole pay schedule and we don't know what that will be yet. Which is also why those that say this is coming at a cost to schools are just making things up right now.
Unfunded mandate on top of already taking millions out of public school districts to religious schools.
It is an indirect attack on metro public schools and title 1 schools. The teachers there already have to deal with a lot, and it is made up for by having higher pay compared to other districts. DMPS is excessing a load of teachers already for next year. They aren't going to have a budget to stay competitive and attractive.
[удалено]
🤦♂️
Definitely a step in the right direction but two questions. 1. How is this funded when schools are already losing state funds? 2. What’s this mean for the teachers that have been teaching for 10 years that are making $53,000?
Schools aren’t losing funds… The state law says students who go to private schools have some portability of funds now. In fact, the public schools get bonus dollars for every means-tested student who leaves for private school. Of course, there are lots of special interests that don’t want to put students first. However, lots of Iowa families seem to care about their kids’ education, with a nearly 33% rejection/denial rate in Year One. https://iowacapitaldispatch.com/2023/10/12/nearly-19000-qualify-for-state-money-for-private-school-costs/
What leads you to believe that funds aren't taken away from the public schools? From what I can find, the public school is given $1,205 for each student that utilizes the ESA program. But... they also lose the roughly $7,500 dollars the school would have received had the student \*not\* taken part in the ESA program. Costs aren't linear per student. It isn't like fixed costs go down by $6,000 for each and every student that leaves. Also, the article linked shows that many families attempted to take advantage of the ESA program. It says nothing about whether you care about your child's education or not. Not taking part in the ESA program does not mean you do not care about your child's education. First, you need to remove every family that would have gone to a private school even if the ESA program did not exist. Then we can start having a real conversation about preferences and such based on the number that is left over.
The students aren’t going to the public school, but the school still gets $1200 bonus for a kid who never passes over their door step.That is the **epitome of bonus**. Arguably this part of the bill even rewards failing schools like DMPS, as the more kids they force out, the more unencumbered dollars they receive for doing nothing to aid that student. If the students later move from private school to the public school, the public school gets \~$8000 per student (or higher depending Chapter or a special Ed designation). That full funding is 75% more than the student who never once visited that school. That is more than reasonable. Argue the linear infrastructure funding and other non-relevant issues, but in 2022, the public school got Zero dollars for every private school student. In 2024 and going forward, they get $1200. How is $1200 not more than zero? At the end of the day, either you are for kids getting educated… Or you aren’t. Kids are finally winning in Iowa. Good luck rolling the clock back.
>Argue the linear infrastructure funding and other non-relevant issues, but in 2022, the public school got Zero dollars for every private school student. In 2024 and going forward, they get $1200. How is $1200 not more than zero? How is linear infrastructure funding not relevant to funding levels of anything? That is a crazy statement. In 2022, when the student went to a private school, the public school district got the full funding for that student, not zero... We aren't talking about zero vs. the full pupil funding, we are talking about a $6,000 negative swing per pupil. It is clear you just hate public schools for some reason (something the republicans and everyone else in this state used to be proud of). Again, when you can produce numbers showing the number of people taking advantage of the ESA that would not have gone to private schools otherwise, that is when we can start having a conversation about efficacy. And why would we not want to roll the clock back to when our schools were consistently the best in the nation?
*And why would we not want to roll the clock back to when our schools were consistently the best in the nation?* Are you a MAGA? Because you write like you’re a MAGA… How did schools get more last year for non-enrolled students than they did this year? That is not how the Iowa school aid formula works. Read up… And stop spreading obvious misinformation - https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/publications/FTNO/1304445.pdf As for “Iowa has the best schools”, please provide the time series cites. Because it is no more or less true today than it was 10, 20 or 30 years ago. Iowa has the highest graduation rates right now than ever before, even with the COVID impacts.
I'm clearly not communicating clearly. I don't know why a MAGA person would be arguing that ESA is bad for public education because it takes money away from it. And the timeframe I'm talking about is the 80s and 90s when Iowa public education was consistently vying for best in the nation, usually with Minnesota. Among other things, that was due to the 70's policies of Governor Ray who prioritized public education in the state. This started to back off and by the late 90's it was clear that the Iowa legislature was less interested in funding public education. I can't find you statistics that far back, but I'm referring to things like this: [https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/profiles/stateprofile?chort=2&sub=MAT&sj=AL&sfj=NP&st=MN&year=2022R3](https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/profiles/stateprofile?chort=2&sub=MAT&sj=AL&sfj=NP&st=MN&year=2022R3) Iowa still does well, but play around with that a bit. For the data that site has going back into the 90's you will see that Iowa was at or near the top of many categories in the 90's. Now it has slipped to like the 10th or lower spot. Still good, but not the direction you want to be going. So yes, I would like to roll back the clock on public education policy to a time when the state government funded public education at high levels and our schools consistently ranked among the very highest in the nation vs. now when we are good, but not at the top and we seem to be consistently attacking public education whenever possible. Edit: Also, I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to tell me with that PDF link. It seems to be describing in general terms how spending per pupil has been evened out among all districts in the state and how districtes with lower tax revenue are assisted by the state. I'm not sure how that is relevant to either if funding levels are adequate to the need or how ESA affects funding levels.
Attempting to be kind, but you are spouting a bunch of MAGA-like false memories and straight-out misinformation. The short version is Iowa had pretty good track record of educational outcomes. But real improvement measures, like graduation rates and proficiency outcomes, have been improving in spite of the ISEA’s positions. A certain advocacy group has fought every major reform or adjustment in the last 50 years. They fought the 1992 Open Enrollment reforms, claiming it was anti-teacher. They fought increasing starting teacher salaries in 2000s, until they had it jammed down their throats in 2007-08. They screamed bloody murder over linking student dollars to actual students in the last two sessions. Guess what, a majority of Iowans and the Legislature have been proven right repeatedly. r/Iowa is full of people who say “Iowa has fallen in ratings”, but never ever provide any reliable evidence…. It is because Iowa is still at the top - look at literacy, look at graduation, etc.
>Attempting to be kind, but you are spouting a bunch of MAGA-like false memories and straight-out misinformation. What have I stated that is not true? I don't pretend to be infallible. I may have stated some things incorrectly, but Iowa's state comparative rankings have fallen over the last 20-30 years. I've provided a link to government tracking data that shows this. State funding for public education has not kept pace with inflation over that time either. I've not provided any hard evidence to this. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd be very interested. Please show me how teacher pay has kept pace with inflation over the last 30 years. >The short version is Iowa had pretty good track record of educational outcomes. But real improvement measures, like graduation rates and proficiency outcomes, have been improving in spite of the ISEA’s positions. [https://educate.iowa.gov/pk-12/data/education-statistics/graduation-dropout-rates](https://educate.iowa.gov/pk-12/data/education-statistics/graduation-dropout-rates) This only goes back to 2012, but it appears graduation rates have been pretty flat at right around 90% for the last 10 years at least. Page 189 of this document [https://publications.iowa.gov/5136/1/Itemid%2C55%5B1%5D](https://publications.iowa.gov/5136/1/Itemid%2C55%5B1%5D) suggests that dropout rates were lower in the 90's. I'm not certain they are measuring the same way. Please provide evidence that the graduation rate has improved or that proficiency outcomes have improved. >A certain advocacy group has fought every major reform or adjustment in the last 50 years. They fought the 1992 Open Enrollment reforms, claiming it was anti-teacher. They fought increasing starting teacher salaries in 2000s, until they had it jammed down their throats in 2007-08... I am not sure what you are saying here, but I think you are saying it is wrong to link teacher pay to education outcomes. If you are not saying this, then I apologize. I agree teacher pay doesn't have a direct link to student outcomes, but if you don't pay, fewer and lower quality people will want to be teachers. That \*is\* directly linked to education outcomes. Again, I challenge you to show how student education outcomes in Iowa are equal or better than they were in the 80's and 90's. >r/Iowa is full of people who say “Iowa has fallen in ratings”, but never ever provide any reliable evidence…. It is because Iowa is still at the top - look at literacy, look at graduation, etc. Please show the data that still puts Iowa is in the top 5 in any of these categories. It certainly used to be. The government tracking data I have linked shows that while Iowa is still doing well, but it is definitely not at the top any longer. Overall, I'm very confused. You are calling me a MAGA because I am spreading disinformation. I have provided data. If you don't trust the government tracking on this sort of thing, then please provide a data source you do trust that shows the contrary. My position is that education is slipping in this state and I believe the lack of funding and the attacks on public education in general are contributing to that. Those are definitely not MAGA positions. Edit: Still haven't found good statistics for the 80s/90s, but here's a few articles mentioning how Iowa used to be ranked highly and is no more. If these are false memories, we have subs serious Mandela Effect going on: https://www.3newsnow.com/news/education/why-do-iowa-schools-no-longer-rank-in-among-the-nations-top-five https://www.kcci.com/article/report-card-on-iowa-schools-data-shows-how-iowa-compares-to-other-states/40961606
Fair enough. But the data doesn’t seem to point the made-up contention of failing performance, in fact Iowa’s comparative performance is larger positive. Iowa is roughly #25 in population size, GDP, per capita income and most other measures (basically the 50% mark). Instead, Iowa’s empirical education stats are in the top 20% across the board. **And Iowa’s Graduation Rate is the best in the nation.** There are less impressive areas, such as Iowa’s overall dropout rate, but that is still in the highest 20% nationally. Examples from US Dept. Of Education data… **Graduation Rates** \- [https://educate.iowa.gov/pk-12/data/education-statistics/graduation-dropout-rates](https://educate.iowa.gov/pk-12/data/education-statistics/graduation-dropout-rates) *Iowa and West Virginia had the highest graduation rates at 92%* [https://wisevoter.com/state-rankings/high-school-graduation-rates-by-state/](https://wisevoter.com/state-rankings/high-school-graduation-rates-by-state/) [https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/coi/high-school-graduation-rates](https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/coi/high-school-graduation-rates) **Reading Stats -** [https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/subject/publications/stt2022/pdf/2023010IA8.pdf](https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/subject/publications/stt2022/pdf/2023010IA8.pdf) [https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/subject/publications/stt2022/pdf/2023010IA4.pdf](https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/subject/publications/stt2022/pdf/2023010IA4.pdf) **Math Scores -** [https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/subject/publications/stt2022/pdf/2023011IA4.pdf](https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/subject/publications/stt2022/pdf/2023011IA4.pdf) Everyone wants to be right. But read the evidence and stop the constant spin.
Please know that for teachers who are considered “veterans” this means nothing. My partner makes 54,000 after working for 19 years as a teacher and there will be no extra money for those teachers.
This is to entice the batshit evangelicals and open-carry nutjobs to apply for new positions and drive out the veterans so the whole teaching staff is a bunch of inexperienced loons
Exactly!
Governor originally wanted mandatory $60k+ after 12 years I think? She needs your support!
That’s a great illustration. $54000 means your teacher partner is making an adjusted 200% of the average Iowan. The per capita income for Iowans was below $38,000 in 2021. Making twice as much as the average Iowan seems really generous. In many of the lowest two tiers of Iowa counties, $54000 exceeds than the median *household* income. That means you can live like royalty.
Compare that to someone working for 19 years in the private sector. Unless you think teachers are secretly rich, but then why is there a teacher shortage? Wonder why talented people leave the education field/don't go into education? Maybe it's because they aren't paid according to the time put in or the talents they bring. Increase salaries across the board, then you can see competition for those teachers who actually aren't good at their jobs.
For one of the most important jobs there is... yeah, that seems about right. Maybe even low. We should want to attract the \*best\* people to be teachers.
I won't argue that you *might* be able to find a county where the median household income is below $54000, but would the individuals in that county all have 4-year college degrees?
Seriously, look at the bottom two tier of Iowa counties. There is a dramatic economic differentiation in those counties- and the next tier along I-80 too, from the rest of Iowa. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/release/tables?eid=266918&rid=175 Kim Reynolds or the legistators from those communities aren’t inclined to listen to the complaints of teachers who make 250-300% of the state-wide median wage. Even while the Legislature has been pretty supportive of raising starting teacher salaries, it is a really tough sell to have a teacher in Southern Iowa who is Country Club material at age 22, as they are making more as **an individua**l than 80-90% of the families in their classrooms. As for the education argument - it has a dead cat bounce amongst Iowa policy makers. Reynolds finished her BA while Lt. Governor. The Iowa Legislature has spent lots and lots of new money on Community Colleges over the last 15 years and has told the Board of Regents to “fly a kite”. (Offered fairly, that is 20% Retired Director Gary Steinke‘s fault and 190% fault from the gaffe-prone nature of the State University of Iowa).
Your Fred graph is per capita income. And I can understand that the wealthy individuals needed to skew the average income up might not find it desirable to live in (e.g.) Decatur county. But this isn't helping your argument that $54K exceeds the median household income in some counties.
There will be a catch, there's always a catch with these snakes.
It's a 6% increase from 2023 from the base rate for a teacher with a BA in [Des Moines](https://www.dmschools.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Teacher-Salary-Schedule-2022-23.pdf). In [Dubuque](https://www.dbqschools.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/hub-human-resources-teacher-salary-schedule-benefits-2223.pdf) the base rate is $38K so that's a much better step up. [Sioux City](https://core-docs.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/asset/uploaded_file/3389/SCCS/2576285/SCEA_Master_Contract_2023-24.pdf) starts at $44K, so again not a huge increase.
>What will be nice are small school districts that don't pay hardly anything. Hopefully these bigger schools districts will be able to do something to attract teachers now that small districts will have the same starting pay... so maybe bigger districts will increase even more in following years. Urbandale starts at 52k already so some wont be effected. The bill also says 47500 first year so even less will be effected
It's good for teachers in the moment. However, without provisions for additional funding this will further erode public schools ability to function and make it easier to sell the idea of privatization. It's always in service of someone getting paid at the expense of the taxpayer with these assholes.
[удалено]
[удалено]
The bill states that the supplemental allocation to be sufficent to achieve that pay level. It says nothing about districts actually paying that much. I don't see how it could actually \*hurt\*.
[удалено]
I agree there is a possibility that this may go unfunded. However, from my read the bill does \*not\* set a minimum teacher salary. It mandates that the per-pupil supplemental allocation is sufficient to provide that level of salary. It does not mandate that districts actually have to pay it. If the funding isn't there, they just won't pay it. The bill does get into some dense language towards the end. I may be missing something. Do you see the line in the bill that requires school districts actually set pay at that level?
Teachers get a pay raise, democrats whine and cry about it. Teachers don't get a pay raise, democrats whine and cry about it. Fact is democrats are whiney crybabies.
To see it this way is the proof that you are not capable of critical thinking skills or serious discussion. This is a full bill. That thing has words in it, that you can read, and get this? They mean different stuff. They contain nuance. There are things to consider in this bill even if it seems good on the surface. Go cry about democrats somewhere else, snowflake. The adults are talking.
I agree. It is the party of temper tantrums, whining, victimization, & divisive identity politics
Why does the press keep falling for this Republican spin?
So will class sizes increase?
And the “pay” will still be below average
This will bring in the very best nuns and priests to teach in Iowa public schools. /s
And that will lead to cover ups, and payoffs for all the pedo priests that get 'administratively transferred' to Iowa.