Press release from Delegate Dave LaRock on the Senate passage of his Educational Savings Accounts bill:
Richmond, VA – Today, the Virginia State Senate voted 21-19 to pass House Bill 1605, which will establish Parental Choice Education Savings Accounts for children with special needs and those in low-income families. After numerous hearings in the House and Senate, legislators asking for help for children who are sometimes ill-served in a public school setting, won the day. The Governor will decide if this will become law in Virginia.
Dave LaRock, the patron of House Bill 1605 commented, “Education Savings Accounts offer educational opportunity to children with special needs and those in low-income families, regardless of their circumstances in life. Many children face challenges which can be best addressed by giving parents more flexibility and additional education options. We owe it to them to provide access to academic resources best suited for their particular needs. We are working to lower the barriers so these kids can reach their full potential.” LaRock said.
LaRock added, “Parental Choice Education Savings Accounts are a proven example of problem-solving through smart innovation, not endless appropriations. American voters overwhelmingly support school choice programs for good reason. It’s time to give the people of Virginia what they are asking for, more education freedom through Education Savings Accounts.” He added, “Most important of all, through these accounts, countless parents and children within Virginia will be given the help they desperately need.”
About Dave LaRock
Delegate Dave LaRock represents the 33rd House District, including parts of Loudoun, Clarke and Frederick Counties, and the towns of Leesburg (partial), Purcellville, Berryville, Lovettsville, Round Hill, Hamilton and Hillsboro. LaRock serves on the Transportation Committee, the Science and Technology Committee and the Education Committee. Dave and his wife, Joanne, have lived in Loudoun for 29 years, building a successful family-owned general contracting business. The LaRocks reside near Hamilton with Laura, Abby and John, the youngest of their seven children.
23 comments
I have commented extensively on this bill previously in a TBE article of Jan 26, 2016 “Putting the All in “All” by Delegate Dave La Rock. He and I were and still are in clear disagreement on both the nature and the effect of this bill regarding the general quality of education issues in Virginia, as well as, what it was sold as, in stark contrast to what it really in effect is. First – what it really is not is a special education and low income student targeted piece of legislation as was marketed to push it through the state assembly. These accounts are available after all to anyone so desiring and able.
What education saving funds actually are and do in my opinion is really nothing more then provide a new entitlement subsidy mechanism (more of an actual tax relief bill then an educational bill) that simply reallocates funds not solely to the benefit of the student but rather to provide some measure of financial tax relief for a small segment (around 12% today) of the state’s home and private schooling population.
The reallocated education saving funds this bill will pull from the local school budgets will leave a net negative budget situation, period, and on a per student basis generally still will NOT cover the typical full tuition coverage expenditures necessary for enrollment in a special education, parochial or private school environment. So without “additional private parental funding” financial resources this program is NOT going to provide and that are not typically readily available to Virginia’s lower income families’, lacking the incremental disposable income to further supplement their child’s education, this will in effect provide nothing more then a tax relief stipend refunded to upper middle class and wealthy parents to assist underwriting placement of their children in private special needs, parochial and/or home school educational environments.
It’s a clever tax ploy that the Democrats and others will see through and will with some justification beat us over the heads with come next election cycle as the Republican’s answer to addressing the floundering education system by in effect further segregating the failing public systems and it’s student populations from the fleeing, largely white, upper middle class. The Virginia legislative process after rejected the open choice charter school system, that has proven to be a working model for improvement in minority and high student concentration urban environments in many states where school and student performance has long been an ongoing problem, with instead this type of specialized tax relief effort for a small segment of the high end income voters, then the message to the lower income minority and working class Virginia population voter couldn’t be communicated more loud and clear from Richmond and the Republicans.
The message being Republicans could have in effect really addressed the issue of core public school improvement by introducing real charter system choice to ALL of the state’s students and their parents rather then this tax perk for approximately 12% of the state’s student population.
I don’t support this and never will as either a tax incentive measure masquerading as education policy or a form of financial education tax reallocation which, as well intended as it may have been proposed, accomplishes little more then assisting white flight from the public education system. We need to learn the lesson of the 60s’ where we saw white flight from the inner cities to the surrounding developing suburbs (often encouraged by special tax incentives as well) that resulted in the eventual decay and collapse that we see in those locations today.
The Virginia education system is certainly in dire need of improvements but this taxing reallocation scheme pushed for a small minority isn’t one of the real solutions and if you are willing to look at the big picture rather then just your personal interests isn’t particularly fair either. I really do understand the citizen heart burn over taxing for purported education services not consumed that underlies much of the rational for these education “saving” accounts (a poor description as there is no real saving going on here just individual tax reallocation reductions) but still find it a poor argument or rational for this approach.
As I have stated many times if this is fair for this group of non consumers of state services why is it not appropriate for the millions of state citizens that are going to receive no tax benefits from this legislation and have not utilized any services for decades from the state’s education system but continue to pay tax allocations to the state’s revenue comptroller year in and year out for decades. Is Delegate LaRock going to propose a tax break fo us?
Somehow I doubt it and we will continue to in most cases gladly pay except with the proviso arises of paying our fair share and some additional for program shortfalls created for others. The state’s education tax base is NOT a utility payment system and it is a citizenship’s obligation (something this piece of legislation decided to redefine for some) to willingly invest in. This piece of legislation certainly has sent a message regarding Republican priorities and concerns regarding addressing public education issues that is insular and short sighted. In my opinion we will disproportionately pay for that at the ballot box for the actual state education system benefits garnered. Bad legislation, bad approach.
I won’t rehash the previous counter-arguments but will point out that the growing support is coming from inner city parents who have been promised school improvements for decades and have seen nothing delivered that improves the education for their children. They have had enough of failing public schools and are looking for a lifeline out of the system. This won’t provide for everything they need, but it is a start in the right direction.
Maybe could this be trying to drain the swamp a bucket at a time?
It’s certainly got me cranking on this issue.
Mr. Trump is the wildcard in all this. Appointing Ms. DeVos was a major show of force. Clearly our new president is going to be a major disruptive force in the long-stagnant “education” sector. As we’ve already seen, they are trying to send federal funds to the 12%. Include additional funds from the state that may come from initiatives like Mr. LaRock’s and, suddenly, private, parochial, home schools become much, much more affordable.
That is a key point critics are missing. Federal funds + State funds = We have a ball game.
That bucket may become a bursting dam (at least, I hope so).
David I always respect your opinions but frankly this program as structured has close to zero outreach potential to lower and working class income families in my opinion. I would be interested in seeing the actual demographic and income distribution patterns on actual usage of this program as it rolls out but I have my doubts they will ever be accurately collected and if so made readily available for public review.
If this is the promise we as Republicans are proposing delivering to that segment of the voter base regarding urban and inner city school education improvements I believe it will be more regarded as a token gesture at best if not with outright derision. The Richmond legislature and the Republican Party seems adverse to attacking the issue systemically as a state charter school system implementation would at least undertake.
I’ve followed ex-Gov. Bobby Jindal experiences regarding the difficulties he had in Louisiana over charter school implementation and it appears the major hurdles are (not surprisingly) vested economic and political in state interests. In the meantime I don’t think we should delude ourselves that this type of an approach won’t produce political fallout at the ballot box.
The immediate effect is likely not very dramatic. However, it gets the ball rolling. Combine state monies with the forthcoming federal monies and then each parent has several thousands of dollars to apply to non-public schools. My guess is this will have an effect on Catholic schools first. I say that because I observe (I’m not Catholic) that the Catholic church actually does put resources in low income areas and subsidizes their schools. That lower barrier of entry into a parochial school education combined with some state money and some federal money will prove to be an actual viable solution for low income families and an exit from failing public schools in low-income neighborhoods.
From there, I have some faith that the capitalist system will work to provide education at a lower price point than public schools. Over time, we’ll see the education market adapt to the new financial options parents will have.
I don’t actually put much stock in charter schools. They are still public schools under a different name
I frankly fail to see the difference between the Feds underwriting private and/or other types of non public schooling with direct or (indirect) funds via grants or DOE contracts that occurs in every state system including Virginia today and the Charter System. There are very few (excepting a small number of elite, high fee base private academies in the US today not receiving direct or indirect education funding via the Feds. Remove them from the system and the whole system collapses.
To use the Catholic parochial schools as an example under regulations of the U.S. Department of Education, Catholic schools may receive services provided by federally funded education programs. Schools in almost all Archdioceses generally participate in one or more programs authorized by the current version of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA). The self funded non government school system is a myth, it doesn’t exist within any educational context and hasn’t since the end of the 19th century.
I have some very serious doubts regarding replacing corporate education for a fee with public funded education. This has been attempted in the higher education area with several for profit colleges and universities and has largely proven to be a disaster
For a free market to work first and foremost you need to have one and I believe a sound argument can be made that we haven’t operated our economy in that manner in over a century. If we have problems now just turn it over to the “free market” common core vendors and see what we end up with then. More school choice for EVERYONE (a key criteria) is a good firstt step and charter school implementation is a proven track to expand choice..
“The self funded non government school system is a myth, it doesn’t exist within any educational context and hasn’t since the end of the 19th century.”
2M home schoolers would disagree. In fact, using them as an example they have the highest achievement with the lowest cost. One could argue whether a completely decentralized method is a “system” but, as a cohort, they do exceptionally well.
“This has been attempted in the higher education area with several for profit colleges and universities and has largely proven to be a disaster” Higher education has a critical flaw–nearly limitless access to student loans without giving debtors the option for bankruptcy.
I got cut short and wanted to conclude saying the education sector needs a real shake up. I won’t purport to have the perfect answer but clearly the public school system’s model isn’t working for a great many students. Change needs to happen. More money for the public schools hasn’t worked in the past 40 years. Much of the problem, in my opinion, is that they are so poorly managed. The mismanagement is intractable (the union influence is taking down a great many industries) and rather trying to fix it, it is better to move the money out of the system and give new methods a chance.
Virginia home schooling is NOT a self funded concept in any definition of the term as it falls under Virginia DOE oversight which is funded out of the state’s nongeneral funding bucket which in turn is largely funded by Federal grants and contracts. I covered the details of it here in a comment if you are interested.
http://thebullelephant.com/federal-funding-for-homeschooling-a-big-mistake/
Thank you, I fear this may fall into the ‘doing something’ category.
Why are we not doing ‘a real charter system’ and I think we should request Dave to do so rather than this seeming partial measure?
wonder how this will apply to the rich folks here in Loudoun that are looking for tax payers to supplement their tuition to high priced, private schools?
Are they not equal to any other parent in Loudoun? They pay the most in taxes. Are they less likely to have special needs children who need education that our public schools are not providing?
Quick about face, JM. You wrote about how this is a great thing for families with challenges and you immediately defend rich families who choose to take their kids out of public schools and want the tax payers to fund their privileged life style. No. They are not the same. Stop asking me to fund you
Then stop asking me to fund what you deem appropriate.
never asked you to fund what I deem appropriate – I have asked you to pay your fair share for what society has determined. Pubic education was decided a century or so ago. Roads and safety are sued by all. What is it you think I am asking you to fund that you do not agree with?
And what, Socialist Demagogue, exactly is someone’s “fair share”?
It seems what you deem “fair” is really organized theft by the huddled masses through excessive taxation.
fair share is determined by law which your elected officials approved and which is something you refuse to accept. Why is it that you only support the constitution and laws when it comes to your right to own a gun or and to speak your mind but not when it comes to all the other laws.
If what you really want to discuss is the actual tax levels, then that is a different question. But to blame Socialist Demagogues for the existence of taxes is just plain stupid. We have lived with taxes that pay for public services for centuries. But, DD says this is not fair and wants to eliminate them? Wow!!!
Your logic is flawed. I support taxation and pay my excessive taxation and advocate for lesser taxation. I’ve never stated there should be no taxation.
By your definition, “fair share” is whatever the law states. That is a legal obligation and has nothing to do with fairness.
My question to you is: how much taxation is too much taxation?
Any surprise votes on this in the Senate?
Looks like pretty much voting by party, unless I’m missing someone. http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?171+vot+SV0791HB1605+HB1605
Every time I see how screwed up the GOP is, the democrat party does something stupider.
If the democrats are dopey enough to oppose this, voting against helping the people they have “pledged” to help, there really is no point in reaching across the aisle for anything.
Perhaps what arises out of their ashes will be more reasonable.
Mr. Wood brings up some good points in opposition, could the dems be opposing for cause other than partisan?