A Pulitzer Prize-winning newspaper
On Aug. 18, Iowa PBS’s Iowa Press hosted Josh Bowar, Sioux Center Christian School head of school and Jennifer Raes, principal of Des Moines’ St. Anthony School. The subject: Iowa’s Students First Act (SFA), which makes state tax dollars available to support the success of every kindergarten through 12th-grade student in the state. The bill establishes a framework and financing for education savings accounts (ESAs), also known as vouchers, that eligible families may use to cover tuition, fees, and other qualified education expenses at Iowa accredited nonpublic schools.
During my years as Sioux Center Community School District superintendent, I worked closely with Dordt as a community partner and as an adjunct instructor in graduate education. I also worked closely with Bowar as a community partner, and I taught at St. Anthony from 1982 to 1984.
Bowar is a Dordt adjunct education faculty member and president of the Iowa Association of Christian Schools (IACS). He worked with the governor and various legislators to pass the bill along with Tim Van Soelen, a Dordt education professor and executive director for the Center for the Advancement of Christian Education (CACE). CACE helps pre-K through 12th-grade Christian schools fulfill their missions. CACE lobbies for similar voucher programs in other states.
The Iowa Press program is the first of a two-part series. The Sept. 1 edition will feature public school representatives providing their views on the SFA. It will air on Iowa PBS stations at 7:30 p.m. on Sept. 1 and again at noon on Sept. 3.
Bowar was asked about private school tuition increases since the bill became law. “I think it's important to understand the purpose of this program,” he responded, “which is to support parental choice. When you think about, this is not a program that was put in place to support a certain kind of school or a certain school building.”
To say that all parents can choose is inaccurate. Severely handicapped and non-English speaking students will have no choice. Parents of low socio-economic-status (SES) will still be unable to afford attendance at most private schools: tuition at most of them exceeds the voucher’s $7,635 per-student allotment.
Unlike public schools, private schools aren’t required to waive fees for low-SES families as defined by the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program. And low-SES parents may need to provide transportation to private schools.
Sioux has the highest per-capita applications of any county in the state, with 11 private schools, 1,183 applications, and 32.8 per 1,000 residents. Most of the remaining applications are in Iowa’s metro areas: Polk County (3,144), Linn County (1,318), Scott County (1,306), Dubuque (882) and Blackhawk (942). Some 42 counties have no private schools; 75 have no private schools through 12th grade.
When Bowar states, “the idea is to give all families access to schools that they think are the best fit for their kids,” that’s inaccurate: It does not apply to most counties.
According to welfareinfo.org, Lyon County has the lowest poverty rate in the state at 4.5% for 12,000 people. Sioux County, just to the south, has the fourth-lowest poverty rate at 5.4% for 33,000 people. Therefore, two of the state’s wealthiest counties will receive the lion’s share of the vouchers for rural counties.
Bowar claims that counties without private school options will see an influx of new schools. This notion is a pipe dream. New schools will mostly target higher-population areas to get a greater number of clients. To assume that 42 rural counties will have new private schools and that 33 counties will have a 12th-grade opportunity is unreasonable.
An Iowa Press panelist asked Bowar: “The critics say that taxpayer dollars should not support private education. Why isn’t that what the state should do?”
His reply: “So actually, when you think about the idea of equity, this system is actually more equitable. And so all the parents who are attending our schools with their kids are paying taxes as well. And so the idea of taxpayer money is that equitable piece of having parents choose.”
I suspect that parents choose the private school option more on personal preferences than a public-school performance issue, i.e., religious education. We all pay taxes for programs and projects that we will never take advantage of or use. Parents opting for a private school make a choice and should understand the consequences of that choice, i.e., paying tuition. And if providing public dollars for private education is equitable, then that money also should be held to the same accountability and scrutiny as dollars provided to public schools.
Do students in Sioux County private schools score better than those in Sioux County public schools? Bowar: “I think it's all across the board. … We would never support a legislation or a bill or any kind of action that we feel would harm some kids in Iowa.”
Regardless of what Bowar says about not harming students, public schools will continue to be deprived of the support necessary to succeed, while the voucher program will receive an estimated $878.8 million over four years. For the 2023-2024 school year, the program is already over budget by more than $47 million. Struggling rural schools will be hard pressed to provide the level of education needed for their students to succeed. Are the students in these schools less important than the subsidized private school students?
Bowar didn’t answer the original question about test scores. Ethnic minority students comprised 5.3% of Sioux Center Christian School’s enrollment for the 2022-2023 school year, with a free and reduced-cost lunch rate (a federal benchmark for poverty) probably in the single digits. Sioux Center community schools have a 46.6% minority student rate, a 44.7% poverty rate, a 21.5% non-English-speaking population, and a 10.3% special education population. Comparing student achievement between the two student bodies is comparing apples to oranges.
An Iowa Press panelist asked whether wealthy people should be able to benefit from these government subsidies as much as financially struggling families. Raes said, “Our schools aren't loaded with people based on the dollars in their bank account … And maybe those people will turn it down. Maybe those people won't apply because they'll say, you know what, I have the money to put into my child's education, so I don't need to apply for those dollars.”
To believe wealthy parents will not take advantage of the voucher program is unrealistic. Subsidizing wealthy parents for private school tuition while public schools continue to be underfunded will do considerable harm to the formerly “best in the nation” school system.
The Students First Act will continue to hobble Iowa’s public schools while providing subsidies to private school parents who typically have the resources to cover the cost of their children’s tuition. The claims that such a program is more equitable are untrue. As resources dwindle, rural students, disabled students, non-English speaking students, and low-SES students will be deprived of a constitutional property right — the right to a free and appropriate public education.
Patrick O’Donnell, Sioux Center
My college religion and philosophy professor was a southern Baptist minister. No matter the answer I gave to any question posed, he responded in southern accent, “But, whyyyyyyyyyyy Mr. Frantz?”
With the upcoming Republican presidential primary debate, I am echoing his question (minus the southern drawl), “But why, Mr. and Ms. GOP, are there so many candidates?”
Technically, Donald Trump is not the incumbent for the role, but in every practical sense he is. He entered the race first, has had from the outset a stranglehold on the nomination, and in every normal race where there is an incumbent should not be challenged within his own party. I know, I know, Biden has those running against him, but do we really want to compare DeSantis to RFK, Jr.? We’ll save that for a later date.
To answer why so many Republican candidates are in this little league cage match, I see three possible scenarios:
1. They are in it in case Trump stumbles, throws in the towel after his seventh indictment, is found guilty of charges, and/or is ruled by the Supreme Court ineligible to take office (see Lawrence Tribe and J. Michael Luttig’s article here Trump Is Constitutionally Prohibited From the Presidency — The Atlantic). “Trump’s out and I’m in,” they think.
2. They really, really think they are a better choice for America. That would be normal, but we are living in the Abby Normal world right now. Only four candidates had announced by the time Trump was indicted for the first time in New York City: Johnson, Ramaswamy, Haley and some dude named Stapleton. The initial indictment came down at the end of March 2023. Within the next two months, Hutchinson, Elder, Scott and DeSantis were in. As news swirled about the federal documents case indictment, handed down on June 9, 2023, Christie, Pence, Bergum, Suarez and Hurd all chose to join the race.
Perhaps they smelled blood in the water, but I find it noteworthy that few of those named have really taken on Trump like one would if one thought they were really the better candidate. Even the Florida governor’s PAC has told him to defend Trump during the debate. Perhaps they were primed to enter the race to give Trump electoral cover, because it’s like watching a sparring bout versus a heavy weight title match right now. With all the political campaign talent available to all these candidates, could they all have hired so poorly? Are they all such weak candidates? Or are their campaigns all actually for real?
3. It serves Trump to have a crowded field. Like in 2016, a crowded field allows a candidate to secure the nomination without a majority of support; only a plurality is needed. That is Trump’s current glide path. The worst thing for Trump would be a 1:1 matchup with a strong opponent. I think he’d do about anything to avoid that. One could argue that the current field is running for vice presidential and/or cabinet positions and/or 2028 name recognition for another run at the top office. All of that would require them to pledge fealty to Trump, assuming he is elected to the presidency.
If this theory is correct, who or what is pulling the strings, and what promises have been made? Were top positions promised if they agreed to run weak campaigns? Was big money promised for their 2028 runs? Is Trump capable of such underhanded goings on? Let me ask Jack Smith and Fani Willis. The candidates also must ask themselves if Trump, the RNC, and/or the dark money lenders can be reciprocally loyal to them and/or show them the money. Recent history starkly provides those answers.
Well, I will be watching closely the news in the coming months. There is something fishier smelling than a winter kill here. But why, GOP?
Mike Frantz, Storm Lake
FREE KITTENS — THEY ARE ALL REPUBLICANS! (THEIR EYES ARE OPEN)
This is the text of a message we placed on the changeable billboard in front of Aunt Reba’s Bed & Breakfast along Iowa Hwy. 9 between Rock Rapids and Larchwood in 2004. It created much interest and frequent responses. However, that message could not be used today.
In many states, including Iowa, some Republicans have turned blind eyes to the actions of the man we elected to be our president in 2016. Yes, my wife and I both voted for Donald Trump in his first presidential bid. However, four years later we found ourselves disappointed and could not vote for him a second time. By that time he had demonstrated himself to be a self-centered liar and unfit for the role of chief executive officer of our nation.
When did he first lie to us? One obvious early example occurred during the first campaign for the office when he was asked to turn over his current income tax records for public examination, as presidential candidates had done for decades. His reply: “I can’t turn over those records today; they are being audited.” You saw the later revelation; his records had not been audited (not that an audit in process would be a valid reason for not providing a copy of his IRS 1040 during the campaign). He simply declined to reveal his current or past records with the IRS because he had been repeatedly using fraudulent figures to avoid payment of his fair share of taxes on his income. In recent years we’ve seen other criteria for determining when Donald Trump is lying: His lips are moving!
Holding himself out to be an excellent negotiator, he proved to be just the opposite. For example, in two meetings with Kim Jung Ill, the dictator of the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (North Korea), Trump met twice with this known international pariah with no one else present other than his interpreter — no expert on Asian affairs from the State Department, no international advisors, no note taker, no one. Trump walked away from each of those meetings claiming complete success and agreement, with no one else present to question his outrageous statement. What is the long term result of those “negotiations?” Kim is firing more medium and long range rockets than ever before, and he continues to threaten the world with nuclear destruction. This is just one notable example of Trump’s total failure while representing our nation in foreign affairs. Look at his actions concerning Iran, Russia, China and a number of our nation’s allies.
Today with four criminal indictments against the man, he is again running for reelection to the top executive office in the land! Imagine if you would, similar outrageous actions on a local level. What would happen if the elected executive leader of a local organization — the Kiwanis or Rotary Club, for example, or a local government office such as the county board of supervisors — would attempt to fraudulently steal the election, would refuse to leave office when his or her successor is to be installed, refuse to admit defeat and be present for the installation of his successor — and then when he does leave office, take numerous boxes of sensitive documents home with him and refuse to turn them over. And today he is threatening violence toward those authorities who are charging him with these crimes.
The amazing fact to me is that many of those who supported this man in the past still refuse to recognize that “they’ve been had.” Those of us who voted for the man in 2016 were lied to. Those of us who voted for him again in 2020 were defrauded. And those members of the GOP who continue to support the man today are being proven to be blind to the facts.
I am tempted to move from Colorado back to Iowa so that I can have a voice in the Republican caucuses, just as I did in the 38 years when we lived in the state. Citizens of Iowa, you have a critical opportunity in front of you during the upcoming year. Republicans, please open your eyes, meet with the candidates as they come to your county, and select a man or woman that you would be proud to put forth in the November 2024 general election. You have a wide variety of potential candidates from which to choose... with names like Pence, Romney, Thune, Haley, Scott... the list goes on. Please nominate an honest person to be our next Republican candidate for president of this great nation.
Rich Crawford, Littleton, Colo.
For those of you that are concerned of the threat of climate change and global warming, you should understand the strong link between climate change and population growth. Population growth in the United States is entirely due to mass immigration, and particular illegal immigration for decades, and most notably, the last two plus years.
A recent article from the environmental organization Negative Population Growth entitled the “Point of No Return,” states “the southern border has been dissolved as a functional barrier, and millions of migrants from all corners of the globe are pouring into the United States.”
Total collapse is the only accurate assessment one can arrive at when objectively evaluating what has happened to the United States immigration system. It is an implosion preceded by bureaucratic corrosion that has spread unabated for decades, developing into a calculated malfeasance accelerating in the past two years under the Biden administration. The Biden administration says the border is secured, which is an outright lie.
Its repercussions are already being felt across the country, with an example of the sanctuary city of New York that is struggling to accommodate the 50,000 hoards of migrants that have poured into the city. The besieged Mayor Eric Adams, is housing these migrants into expensive hotels at $300 a night, plus meals, which places the cost over $400 a night. The expected cost of housing and feeding all these people is $12 billion dollars. The mayor says he will have to cut city services. The same is true in Chicago, Washington, D.C., but these migrants in those cities represent less than 1% of the more than 7 million that have arrived since 2021.”
Why has the Biden administration promoted an open border policy. Is it because of “compassion,” a need for workers, or is it because the expectation of such policy will reward the Democratic Party with future votes? My guess is the latter.
Lost in much of the discussion, is the incredible spiking of illegal and dangerous drugs entering our country, the drug cartels, killing over 100,000 people annually; and human trafficking.
A President and Congress have a moral obligation and legal duty to secure our borders and enforce immigration laws. A country that does not do both will cease to be a country. We may be on that path.
Vic Massara, Omaha, Neb.
There was a popular saying among Iowa public school children in the 1950s and 60s: “Anyone can become president.”
That kind of sentiment is literally true in a vibrant, participatory, inclusive democracy.
But today almost no common citizen can possibly become President. The job is limited to political scoundrels who serve the interests of corporate lobbyists, the military-industrial complex, political bosses, and foreign autocrats, and who pledge to usurp power from the people’s Congressional representatives.
Real Republicans, real Democrats, and real human beings are frozen out of the job.
Kimball Shinkoskey, Woods Cross, Utah
On Aug. 22, hearings began for the Summit pipeline; a pipeline that currently leads nowhere. By all appearances, the board's insistence to hold it now, and the order in which testimony is to be presented, shows complete and extreme preference to Summit and even Bruce Rastetter himself.
The very idea that one single person is more important to the Iowa Utilities Board and our state government than the whole of our state's citizens is appalling and smacks of a type of elitism that is far beneath the intentions of our Constitution and our country's founders.
In case anyone still has no idea what the easement contract demands, please read the following sentences. Summit would receive complete and total ownership and rights to any and all decisions for any land in each and every parcel for which they get easement rights. This is because they can decide in which part of the parcel to construct the pipeline and its appurtenances at a later date. The current property owner must get written permission from Summit to do anything in or around that said parcel. The current parcel owner has absolutely no say as to whom or what enters that parcel at any time and without advance notice. This is only the beginning of the loss of ownership rights with which our fellow citizens are being forced to deal.
Meanwhile, Summit can also lend, lease, or sell these easements to anyone from anywhere at any time. In perpetuity. Forever. Until the end of time.
YET! In spite of losing all right for making decisions on this land, each Iowa citizen is forced to continue paying property taxes and be held liable for any problems, damage, or injury on the land these easement contracts claim. Even though that person will very likely be unable to attain any liability insurance according to multiple insurance providers.
All this, while Summit claims billions of our country’s taxpayer dollars for their own private profit.
If the board agrees and permits all this to occur, what else can it be but complete and extreme preference to Summit and even Bruce Rastetter himself?
Donna Juber, Rural Hardin County
Whenever I need my spirits lifted, I search for one of Art’s column. And since I turned 83 and my wife entered a nursing home, that need seems to come more often. After reading Art’s latest, I know there is at least one sane person left in Iowa, but how are the two of us going to convince the rest of the folks to love each other and quit squabbling? I’ll just keep keeping on.
Max Lawson, Burlington
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here