“It’s like déjà vu all over again,” said Yogi Berra. Once again Iowa school finance is caught on the political football field of the Iowa legislature. And education’s cause is not helped by our governor pushing his own version of education reform.
As a former school board director, I know we’ve been down this road before – and relatively recently. Each year, local schools plan their budgets, including setting local tax levies. This requires the state legislature to determine allowable growth (the percentage increase per pupil they can expect from the state). Due to the economy, schools are coming off of a year of 0% allowable growth and hoping to see 2-4% for 2014.
However thanks to the governor’s education reform plan, which includes a study of teacher compensation, Governor Branstad is proposing a delay to setting allowable growth. The governor wants to wait a year to see what the study proposes before he sets allowable growth. This presumes the task force will not only have proposals, but that they will be adopted and effective on July 1, 2013.
Iowa law requires the legislature to set allowable growth within 30 days after the governor submits a budget proposal. Although the Senate met that deadline, passing legislation with 4% allowable growth, the House instead passed a bill to set allowable growth for two years on odd numbered years.
“What’s the problem?” you may ask. Well, by Iowa law, schools must issue contracts and certify their budgets by April 15 each year. And I’ll give you one guess which governor set that policy. Yup – Governor Branstad in his first round as Iowa’s governor.
But how can schools develop a budget and set their tax rates without knowing how much funding they will receive?
If education is really a priority, shouldn’t we be allocating the resources for schools to improve student achievement, implement the Iowa Core Curriculum already underway and prepare Iowa’s kids for the 21st century? These kids are already in school; how do they benefit if we cut funding for these programs midstream? And with Iowa’s economy showing signs of improvement, shouldn’t our children benefit?
Improving student achievement has less to do with making legislative policy changes than with providing the resources to make it happen. In point of fact, public officials’ job is taxing and spending – first and foremost. So I’d like my state legislature to get busy and fund our schools.
Because as a parent, while my daughter is in school, I want the legislature to make sure funds are available to keep her school operating. And before the legislature and governor go making radical changes to how my school operates, I want them to listen to my local teachers, principals and parents. We know our kids and our community, and we have been working together to develop a quality program.
And we’re not alone. Schools across Iowa have been working hard to improve their programs and meet the requirements of the last big school reform plan – No Child Left Behind.
So I think it’s time for the governor and legislature to pony up and put their money where their mouth is. Pass allowable growth, and make sure our kids’ education continues uninterrupted.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Are abortion and contraception health care?
I’ve had two abortions. Shocked? I certainly was when I learned D & Cs (dilation and curettage) are often coded as abortions for insurance purposes. Suddenly, abortion became a very personal issue.
When my husband and I were ready for a second child, I went through what was diagnosed as “recurrent miscarriages.” At one point, my body was expelling embryos so fast, the doctor could barely document the pregnancy.
And I carried two babies 12 weeks only to lose them. In both cases, our doctor recommended a D & C to prevent infection and future complications. I credit her care for the eventual birth of our daughter.
These memories come flooding back whenever abortion and contraception re-emerge as political footballs. Both are health care issues best left to individuals and their doctors. And their complicated nature is illustrated by personal stories.
For example, I read an account in Salon Magazine several years ago by a Catholic nurse whose family wanted a fourth child.
However, when they learned (after 20 weeks) their much anticipated daughter had a fatal condition that would precipitate her death shortly after birth – and one in which she would suffer – they felt they must make an unwelcome decision.
As a nurse, this woman did research to locate a facility that would perform a dilation and extraction to allow her family to bury their child and say goodbye.
But the pain didn’t end there. At a time when this family needed love and support, they were ostracized by friends, some family and their faith community.
Even the birth later, of a healthy fourth child, could not ease that pain.
So lately with the manufactured outrage over the decision to require all employers, including faith-based organizations (hospitals, charities, universities) to cover contraception as part of health insurance benefits for employees, I have been remembering all the women I know whose doctors have prescribed contraception to treat conditions like endometriosis or to prevent pregnancies that would endanger their lives due to other chronic conditions.
These memories prompt me to ask how we can deny that contraception (or abortion) is part of women’s health care?
And how can legislators in good conscience limit or deny access to treatments doctors need to care for patients?
With regard to this latest decision on contraception, it’s not really a controversial issue. As a story on ThinkProgress.org notes, DePaul University, as well as a number of other Catholic institutions, offers their employees a contraception benefit with their health insurance in accordance with state and federal law.
ThinkProgress also notes: “DePaul’s home state of Illinois is one of 28 to have adopted a contraception coverage requirement.
Eight of those states provide no opt-out clause for religious institutions and the administration’s new rule would expand conscience protections to those parts of the country.”
The story also referenced a Public Religion Research Institute poll indicating a majority of Americans, including a majority of Catholics, support the new coverage requirement.
So if the Obama administration is waging a “war on religion,” why did their decision “expand conscience protections to those parts of the country?” In other words, this decision allows more groups an exception to providing contraception.
Once again the mainstream media and politicians are using women’s health issues as a political football – to the detriment of women’s health.
So the libertarian in me wants to know, “Why do ‘small government’ Conservatives want to meddle in my health care?”
When my husband and I were ready for a second child, I went through what was diagnosed as “recurrent miscarriages.” At one point, my body was expelling embryos so fast, the doctor could barely document the pregnancy.
And I carried two babies 12 weeks only to lose them. In both cases, our doctor recommended a D & C to prevent infection and future complications. I credit her care for the eventual birth of our daughter.
These memories come flooding back whenever abortion and contraception re-emerge as political footballs. Both are health care issues best left to individuals and their doctors. And their complicated nature is illustrated by personal stories.
For example, I read an account in Salon Magazine several years ago by a Catholic nurse whose family wanted a fourth child.
However, when they learned (after 20 weeks) their much anticipated daughter had a fatal condition that would precipitate her death shortly after birth – and one in which she would suffer – they felt they must make an unwelcome decision.
As a nurse, this woman did research to locate a facility that would perform a dilation and extraction to allow her family to bury their child and say goodbye.
But the pain didn’t end there. At a time when this family needed love and support, they were ostracized by friends, some family and their faith community.
Even the birth later, of a healthy fourth child, could not ease that pain.
So lately with the manufactured outrage over the decision to require all employers, including faith-based organizations (hospitals, charities, universities) to cover contraception as part of health insurance benefits for employees, I have been remembering all the women I know whose doctors have prescribed contraception to treat conditions like endometriosis or to prevent pregnancies that would endanger their lives due to other chronic conditions.
These memories prompt me to ask how we can deny that contraception (or abortion) is part of women’s health care?
And how can legislators in good conscience limit or deny access to treatments doctors need to care for patients?
With regard to this latest decision on contraception, it’s not really a controversial issue. As a story on ThinkProgress.org notes, DePaul University, as well as a number of other Catholic institutions, offers their employees a contraception benefit with their health insurance in accordance with state and federal law.
ThinkProgress also notes: “DePaul’s home state of Illinois is one of 28 to have adopted a contraception coverage requirement.
Eight of those states provide no opt-out clause for religious institutions and the administration’s new rule would expand conscience protections to those parts of the country.”
The story also referenced a Public Religion Research Institute poll indicating a majority of Americans, including a majority of Catholics, support the new coverage requirement.
So if the Obama administration is waging a “war on religion,” why did their decision “expand conscience protections to those parts of the country?” In other words, this decision allows more groups an exception to providing contraception.
Once again the mainstream media and politicians are using women’s health issues as a political football – to the detriment of women’s health.
So the libertarian in me wants to know, “Why do ‘small government’ Conservatives want to meddle in my health care?”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
