DES MOINES, Iowa – On Thursday night, after an hours-long heated debate, the Iowa Senate passed SF 159, Gov. Kim Reynolds’ “Students First Act,” a bill that offers several school choice components, by a 26 to 21 vote.
The vote was a mostly party-line vote, but three Republicans – State Senators Dawn Driscoll, R-Williamsburg, Tom Shipley, R-Nodaway, and Annette Sweeney, R-Alden – joined Senate Democrats opposition of the bill.
The bill, then SSB 1065, passed out of the Iowa Senate Education Committee last Monday by an 8 to 7 vote and then passed, as SF 159, out of the Senate Appropriations Committee on Wednesday by a 13 to 8 vote.
The bill has several school choice components:
- It creates a “Students First Scholarship” for students entering kindergarten or currently attending a public school identified under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) as needing comprehensive support. Families can use the scholarship for various qualified educational expenses such as nonpublic school tuition, curriculum fees, materials, cognitive skills training, tuition for vocational and life skills training, etc.
- It expands Iowa’s charter school law by allowing the state board of education to approve charter schools established by independent founding groups and not just school districts.
- It eliminates the use of voluntary diversity plans as the basis of denying open enrollment.
- It expands the tuition and textbook tax credit utilized by parents who send their children to nonpublic schools.
After dealing with various amendments, the Iowa Senate returned to debating the bill. State Senator Jim Carlin, R-Sioux City, said lawmakers are responsible for helping children in failing schools.
“If we know that enrollment in a failing school can be toxic to educational and economic outcomes, don’t we have a duty to look for alternatives? Or do we just accept it? Do we just make peace with it? Are we just going to stay the same course when those outcomes are predictable and tragic?” he asked.
Carlin discussed the role parents should play.
“What role should they play? Shouldn’t they have some say? Do we just want to leave the parents out entirely? And do we give these failing schools the title deed to those children’s lives and outcomes and education like they’re owned like a commodity? That’s kind of how it is. They don’t own these kids. You don’t own these kids. Their economic destinies should be determined by their parents in larger measure. Education Savings Accounts give parents a voice and empower them to make game-changing choices for their children,” he added.
State Senator Claire Celsi, D-West Des Moines, said struggling schools have student subgroups with chronic underperformance, students with learning disabilities, English language learners, or students with mental health issues. She asked what happened to bills meant to help those students.
“Democrats and Republicans have introduced beer bills over the past ten years to help target those kids. What has become of these bills? Most of the bills have languished under the Republican-controlled legislature. Republicans have either not passed the bills or passed them and then underfunded them or not funded them at all,” she said.
“If ESSA provides us this great granular data about Iowa’s public schools, you think that Republicans who are in charge of the house senate and the governor’s office would roll up their sleeves and say, let’s get to work and fix this. Nope. That’s not what is happening,” Celsi added.
She later said that Iowa’s taxpayers are being asked to “prop up” nonpublic schools and fund public schools.
“Republicans are prioritizing the expansion and fiscal health of private schools, some of them being religious schools over the fiscal and educational well being of Iowa’s public schools,” Celsi claimed.
State Senator Jackie Smith, D-Sioux City, pointed out that Senate Republicans think they have a mandate.
“This bill is radical. And I know you think you’ve got a mandate, but I don’t think the mandate is to defund public education,” she said.
Smith directed her attention to charter schools.
“The establishment of charter schools for will reallocate resources away from serving all just serving a few. And contrary to what I heard earlier, charter schools will have little accountability to the public under this legislation. They’re exempt from state rules and regulations that govern public schools. And public money must have public oversight with a community elected school board. Charter schools don’t have that,” she said.
State Senator Sarah Trone Garriott, D-Windsor Heights, said the bill represents choice for some families, but not all.
“So let’s talk about the choices this bill presents. What are the choices for children with disabilities? Well, if a private school can choose to accept them or not, that’s not really much of a choice. What about students of diverse religious backgrounds? Since we’ve already heard that, because it’s a private savings account and no longer state money, we cannot hold the private schools accountable to accept students of all religious or no religious background,” she said.
Trone Garriott said that the state wouldn’t have recourse to challenge nonpublic schools that deny admission to students of color or LGBT students.
She stated the bill would hurt rural schools.
“So if a child in a rural district decides to commute in with their parents who are probably also driving pretty far for work, even five children, that means that the school in that community, the public schools, their only choice is to cut staff. That’s a teacher’s salary. Those are programs. Do we choose the school nurse? Do we choose the music teacher? Do we choose the gym teacher? Maybe the choice becomes do we choose to consolidate?” Trone Garriott said.
She also argued that taxpayers don’t get a choice.
“What about the taxpayer choice? Do taxpayers have a choice about whether or not they’ll be paying for religious instruction? Do taxpayers have any choice in what their tax dollars are paying for? Because the private schools can choose to report to the public choose what standards they will meet or report on. They can choose their accountability. They can choose whether or not to respond to records requests or have open meetings. Taxpayers don’t get to choose,” Trone Garriott claimed.
State Senator Amanda Ragan, D-Mason City, said a constituent wrote to her about how the bill could hurt rural schools.
“One constituent wrote to me that per-pupil state spending is around $7,000. And if only five kids leave a public school, that is a $35,000 loss. That amount is devastating to a small rural school that are (sic) already making budget cuts. Schools are a large part of our community. In fact, they are the heart of our community. They help to build our communities all across Iowa. Rural schools can be especially impacted by this legislation,” she said.
State Senator Herman Quirmbach, D-Ames, downplayed research from the Freidman Foundation (now called EdChoice) and cited his preferred studies.
He also said that the legislature should “fix the damn school” rather than provide an exit ramp for people who “already know how to work the system.”
State Senator Tim Goodwin, R-Burlington, said that he supports the bill but had concerns. For instance, he believes that special needs students should be included in the ESA program. He is also concerned that the athletic eligibility language could be open to interpretation.
“The education of Iowa’s students is one of the most important policies this chamber addresses every year, improving student achievement and consequently, improving students future career opportunities will always be a priority of mine. I was elected in part to support educational opportunities for every single Iowa student. Not some, but every single one. I hear often from my friends in education that one size does not fit all, and to that, I would say, exactly,” he said.
State Senator Nate Boulton, D-Des Moines, said Republicans should give more funding to public schools instead of taking funds away.
“Our public schools have been telling us for years; the low fuel light is on. And yet, the solution from this majority is to siphon out what’s left. That’s what this is. We desperately need to have a discussion, a debate about public education in our state about how we can create that transformative moment that we need to restore Iowa as a world leader in our public school system. This discussion isn’t even close to that. This isn’t a transformative moment. It’s a transgression. This is a moment where we go in the wrong direction with the wrong solution,” he said.
State Senator Todd Taylor, D-Cedar Rapids, also complained about funding.
“When a nonpublic student is no longer counted in that school district, the funds associated with that student will be automatically deducted from that residence funding. That’s the diversion. When we call it ‘Students First,’ and we call it scholarship for kids, but what’s really happening is a draining of the public dollars in the public schools in the name of school choice. The targeted schools will be those that are already hurting. The diversion of public monies in this bill will further hinder those schools in need,” he said.
State Senator Jeff Edler, R-State Center, stood in support of the bill and challenged Senate Democrats on the use of the word “radical.”
“Two definitions come up, number one, ‘relating to or affecting the fundamental nature of something.’ So when we look at definition one, individuals who call this bill radical, you may be correct. Because Senate File 159 provides an environment for parents to create a fundamental change for their children to exit failing school systems. Let’s take a look at definition number two, ‘advocating or based on thorough or complete political or social change, representing or supporting an extreme or progressive section of a political party.’ Well, folks, I can tell you tonight, Senate File 159 does not do that. But you don’t have to look too far in the news to find out where it is happening,” he said.
“I want to thank the governor for bringing this bill forward. And you know, I leave you with one question, is it so radical to ask for success?” Edler asked.
State Senator Zach Wahls, D-Coralville, said that nonpublic schools should not receive taxpayer funding since they do not have the mandate to educate every student.
“There’s nothing wrong with private education. There’s even a role for homeschooling. But the idea that we would take away resources from public education to improve how we educate our students is as out of touch is using taxpayer dollars to pave a private road that we can’t drive on, to build a private golf course that we can play on or private pool that our kids can’t swim in. Why on earth would we give private schools taxpayer dollars that don’t have the mandate, the commitment, the responsibility of educating every single one of our students, especially those students who are currently being left behind?” he asked.
Wahls also complained about fast-tracking the bill in light of other priorities.
“This 65-page bill was filed last week, and it was fast-tracked this week. What on earth are we doing? We shouldn’t be fast-tracking this bill. We should be fast-tracking legislation to accelerate vaccine distribution. We should be fast-tracking legislation to protect essential workers,” he argued.
State Senator Julian Garrett, R-Indianola, spoke in favor of the bill. He pointed out a Forbes article citing research that disputed research that State Senator Quirmbach shared about charter schools during his remarks.
The study showed disadvantaged students performing better in charter schools compared to those who were not.
“Folks, can you imagine any other subject where Democrats would be critical because a policy helped poor, disadvantaged students,” Garrett said.
State Senator Liz Mathis, D-Hiawatha, says she sees success when she goes to public schools, not failure.
“This is the word that I keep hearing, failure, failure, failure, failure, failure, failure, our public schools, when is the last time you’ve been inside a school and you’ve watched what’s going on there? When I go to my schools, it’s success. When I go to a small rural school, I see success. I see teachers caring for their students. I see innovation despite what we screw up here. I see amazing things happening in the classroom every time I go,” she said.
State Senator Brad Zaun, R-Urbandale, rebuked Senate Democrats for calling the bill racist. He said applying that label was “disgusting.”
“Earlier was sad that their school bill that we did earlier that I managed that since we’ve been in power, our bills are extreme. I just saw a tweet that says your caucus has set a 50-year record for having the least amount of members over four years. Keep it up because Iowans want good schools. Iowans want to make some changes,” he said.
Zaun noted that one of the five public schools in his district is Des Moines Public Schools. That school district was the only one in the five school districts he represents that said no to in-school instruction and extra-curricular activities. He heard from parents complaining about their open-enrollment policy.
“And I heard from numerous parents, particularly the ones that had seniors in the Des Moines Public Schools that were so upset that this the Des Moines Public Schools denied open enrollment for their seniors to get out of that school district,so they can participate in debate, band, athletics, the list goes on,” he said.
“Diversity is a disguise of capping open enrollment. That’s all it is. So these poor kids that were potentially going to get scholarships, could have potentially lost it. Because they were told, the parents were told, ‘no, you cannot move out of the school district.'” Zaun added.
He also noted that 12 of the 34 failing schools under ESSA are in five of the school districts that use voluntary diversity plans to deny open enrollment.
Zaun said Republicans continually hear from parents who want school choice, contrary to what Senate Democrats claim.
He cited a recent poll conducted by Braun Research and commissioned by the Iowa Association for Choice in Education (Iowa ACE) that showed widespread support for school choice among Iowans. The survey showed that more than two-fifths of Iowans (43 percent) said they never heard of Education Savings Accounts (ESAs). Still, after being provided a definition, two-thirds (67 percent) are in favor of them. Over three-fourths of parents who still have children in school favor a universal ESA program.
“You know, what’s missing from this conversation from you all, don’t hear much about parents and students. Boy, we’re hearing a lot about administrators and teachers. And I know you’re trying to take care of teachers’ unions. But it’s wrong. The parents are the center of attention here. The students are the center of attention. I also hear about the schools that will close because of this. Well, I can tell you that I’ve looked at the data where this has been enforced in other states, their schools are not closing. I am a small business person. I know that my competition makes me better. This bill will make our public schools better because of the competition. And that is a good thing,” Zaun said. “This is a big day for parents. This is a big day for students.”
State Senator Amy Sinclair, R-Allerton, floor managed the bill and gave closing remarks. She addressed some of the claims brought up by Democrats.
“I heard so much from my colleagues about how we aren’t respecting the teachers, and they’re overworked. And they’re struggling in a pandemic. And do you know what? I agree with every single bit of that. My sister and my best friend spend every single day in a classroom of third-graders with a compromised immune system and does work that none of us can even imagine right now. So please, please don’t accuse me of not being mindful of the needs of teachers,” she said.
State Auditor Rob Sand, a Democrat, criticized the bill for not requiring an audit.
Sinclair noted that the bill instructs the Iowa Department of Education to conduct audits and review of the program and develop rules to that effect.
She also addressed the accusations of not funding certain education bills.
“My colleague from Polk County mentioned all of the programs that we had didn’t fund or underfunded. You know, I could talk about the mental health funds that we have dedicated and funded to to the AEAs and the therapeutic classrooms that have funding in them this year, and, all of the equity funding that we’ve done. And my goodness, when we talk about not even meeting inflation, I had to go back exactly to this budget year to see that we had exceeded inflation for 2020 by $45 million. And there’s nothing in this bill that will prevent us from doing that again this year,” Sinclair said.
She also pointed out that there is funding in an appropriations biil this session that was delayed a year due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
“My colleague from Polk County also said that, that we didn’t adequately fund our schools and that equity was an issue. Mr. President, I believe Iowa is the only remaining state in the nation that’s never been successfully sued for adequacy or equity,” Sinclair added.
She addressed accusations that the bill represents entitlement funding and that Iowans did not want to pay for that.
“I scoffed a little because how much of our budget is an entitlement program, but more than that, children are constitutionally entitled to an education. They are not constitutionally entitled to a public school system. They’re entitled to an education. I would suggest that every Iowan supports that taxpayer-funded entitlement,” Sinclair said.
She also responded to the accusation that taxpayers don’t get a choice.
“You know, I just stopped in my tracks there for a moment because in August taxpayers right here in Des Moines were not given a choice about the $266 million that went into Des Moines Public School District, when they refuse to follow state law, and they denied kindergarteners and first graders who need interaction, and they denied special needs children an adequate or an equitable education because they wouldn’t open their doors. Taxpayers didn’t get a choice in that either. And that $266 million was significantly larger than what we’re talking about here tonight,” Sinclair said.
She said she is dumbfounded by the resistance to and the comments made about this bill.
“I don’t understand the level of resistance that is coming at us as we’re trying to protect this very, very limited population of children who are quite literally trapped in failing schools,” Sinclair added.
“I’ve had claims leveled at me through email and voicemail text message that we’re spending $50 million. We are not. There are 10,000 children who would be eligible for these scholarships. Nationwide data suggests that three to five percent of those students will actually seek it out. And for the record, that $50 million is currently being spent because all of those children are in public schools and are required to be to be eligible for a scholarship,” she argued.
“I’ve heard claims of a slippery slope. I have gotten some wild hyperbole about how this will decimate rural schools. And I’ve been told I’m catering to the wealthy, and I’m widening the achievement gap. I’ve even been called a racist. Oh, that happened here tonight. Again. Much of this is misleading. Some of it is outright lies. Or even worse. I’ve been called names and insulted and bullied by individuals who I would venture to say espouse that those things are unacceptable behavior in polite society,” Sinclair argued.
“All of these attacks are because I desire the best outcomes for all of Iowa’s children, that I seek to empower the parents to take control of their children’s destiny. At its heart, Senate File 159 is a bill that places parents back in the driver’s seat for their child’s very personal educational journey. It does create an aggressive remediation for children trapped in failing schools. It does have checks and balances in place and strict oversight of expenditures, as I’ve outlined. And it has harsh criminal penalties for anyone who would violate the integrity of that scholarship through fraud,” she stated.
Sinclair said that the ESA program does not impact the budget and is largely revenue neutral since the money is already being spent on Iowa students.
“This bill won’t hurt any rural school, or any school not on that list of 34 buildings that is (sic) failing children. They failed to educate them. And the children deserve better,” she said.
Sinclair noted that the bill is not one that would help the wealthy.
“These are not wealthy kids. These are not kids whose parents could do better for them anyway. These are kids and families who are struggling and they’re struggling even more right now as they as they’re at home alone. Because their parents are working or there was single moms who have no choice but to go and earn the money to make sure her kids eat. Talk about the needs of children, they’re going to make sure they eat before they make sure that they get online and click the buttons. These are not wealthy kids. And by leaving them languishing in these buildings that are failing them,” she said. “We should be ashamed of ourselves for doing that. These aren’t parents who can afford the private school tuition. They aren’t able to move out into another district to get a better opportunity.”
Sinclair explained why she supported the bill.
“I’ve been asked several times in emails how I can support this bill. Let me tell you my answer. I can support this bill easily. These children are being failed by cracks in our system. And this is my attempt to stand in the gap on their behalf,” she said.
Listen to the full debate (after debate over filed amendments to the bill) below: