Former Douglas County school board member Emily Hansen was among those speaking against a voucher plan.
It was a civil, if feisty, crowd.
More than 40 speakers and others packed a school board meeting room in Castle Rock on Tuesday for the public’s first chance to comment on Douglas County’s voucher proposal.
Most of the speakers – 26 of the 42 – spoke against the draft plan, citing concerns about public dollars flowing to private schools and the potential exodus of district students. Some criticized the board’s decision to spend more than $13,000 on the attorney who wrote the proposal.
“We do not have a failing school system,” said a passionate Daniel Galloway, the father of four students in district schools. “Let’s call this what it is. You call it choice, I call it a bailout or a subsidy.”
But there was also emotion among the supporters who spoke. One mom talked about the problems her autistic son is having in his neighborhood school. Others said the proposal could reduce overcrowding and bring more money into the district.
“I will be happy for my taxpayer money to be provided towards parents to choose which school fits their needs,” said Karin Piper, whose children have been in traditional, charter, online, private and home schools. “I don’t feel like I have the business to tell parents that.”
Under the current proposal, a student enrolled in Douglas County could receive a voucher equal to a private school’s tuition or 75 percent of per-pupil funding, whichever is less. The other 25 percent would stay in the district.
Private and religious schools in Douglas County could apply to participate in the program and, under the current plan, those schools could continue admissions policies requiring students be of a certain faith.
But Douglas County school board members said the final version of the plan will be shaped by community input. A second public hearing is scheduled Dec. 7 and board President John Carson said a time line for a vote on the proposal should be ready by the board’s Dec. 21 meeting.
For more information about the proposal and a legal history of vouchers in Colorado, see this EdNews’ story.
Click in the video below to view highlights from Tuesday’s meeting. In some shots, you can see the clock ticking down the single minute each speaker was given. And you’ll hear, in some cases, audience members shouting out “Time” to ensure the limit was enforced – causing some speakers to stop mid-sentence.
Thanks for showing only 3 positive comments and 10+ negative comments even though 38% of the speakers spoke in favor of the plan. Are we a little biased?
Here is something I learned tonight …
Guess how much state funded money the Douglas County School District currently receives for students enrolled in a non-public school?
I’ll give you a minute.
Take your time.
Currently, the district receives $0 for each student who is enrolled in a non-public school.
I’ll let you reach your own conclusions … I’ll just say this. I’ve yet to see any media outlet report that little nugget.
As the reporter who sat through all 42 speakers and compiled the video, I can tell you there are 12 speakers shown – 8 opposed and 4 in support. So that’s 33 percent in support. If I had shown 5 of 12 people in support, that would be 42 percent.
There were 42 speakers, 26 opposed and 16 in support – or 38 percent in support, as you pointed out. So I’m either showing too many – 42 percent – or too few – 33 percent – to be mathematically exact. But the goal is a representative sample, not a precise match, as well as something informative and interesting to watch.
Hopefully, a viewer is also taking the time to read the story and can note exactly how many were for and against the plan, which is why those numbers were included.
With all due respect Nancy. I just re-watched it. It was 10 to 3. And the 1st eight were negative.
With all due respect Brian – I just re-watched. Nancy was correct there were 4 pro. The 4th was a fella in a white shirt (older) and spoke really briefly.
Why all of a sudden is there a concern that Douglas County tax money may be used to support religious practice? Such distribution of tax money is routine. The precedent has been set and in practice for over 20 years.
Ever since 1989 seven counties of the metro area have been collecting a sales and use tax destined for support of the districts cultural community. The Scientific and Cultural Facilities District has distributed this tax money to many not-for-profit organizations some of which are associated with groups whose purpose is to promote their specific religious beliefs. No one has been objecting to that.
Is it possible a court decision may result in return of those SCFD distributed monies?