Rep. Steven Holt

House Democrats blamed an inanimate object for school shootings, engaged in emotional outbursts not grounded in facts or commonsense, and made the case over and over again during floor debate that the solution to ending school violence is to disarm law-abiding citizens. They even advanced an amendment to create red flag laws in Iowa, thereby denying due process to the citizens of Iowa.

During debate I stated, “None of the shootings referred to during debate, and none of the school shootings that I’m aware of that have taken place, involve a parent with a permit to carry or an educator with a permit to carry going up to a school to drop off their loved ones and just suddenly deciding to commit violence. All of these things are premeditated. I am personally way more comfortable with the idea of law-abiding citizens being allowed to carry a firearm, because like I said, the bad guys don’t care what the law says, they will kill indiscriminately. And one armed citizen with a proficiency in firearms can eliminate the threat.”

Attorney legislators in the Democrat caucus blatantly advanced falsehoods on the floor during debate about offensive weapons such as machine guns and bombs now being allowed in school parking lots. This was absurd, laughable and blatant misinformation easily exposed by a simple review of Iowa code, which prohibits offensive weapons for all but a select few, such as law enforcement and military personnel. They either knew this and decided to mislead the public and the media or were too ignorant to read the code before debate.

Democrats spoke about the loss of life caused by school shootings, while ignoring the millions of children lost to abortion because of their support for killing unborn children, even up until birth. They also ignored or failed to understand that it is their moral relativism that has led to a collapse of the values that produce strong children and adults, producing the mental illness that leads to school shootings.

The debate on this legislation gives compelling reasons why Democrats should not be in control of the government of free men and women, because they don’t trust them, and will move to deny their freedoms as soon as they are given the opportunity to do so.

Republicans will continue to stand up for fundamental rights in Iowa, recognizing that it is not about the gun, but rather about the character of the person holding the gun. Republicans will also continue to stand up for the founding values that come from God, that produce strong families and stable societies, and against the assault and the lies being advanced by the Left against our children, our culture and our nation.

I am honored to serve as your State Representative. You can email me at steven.holt@legis.iowa.gov

Question: What basic information should I know about Senate File 482?

Answer: Simply put, the bill requires biological girls to use the girl’s bathroom or changing facility and biological boys to use the boy’s bathroom or changing facility in school. On school trips, hotel rooms must be assigned based on biology.

Question: How is it determined who is a boy and who is a girl?

Answer: The law clears up any confusion or debate; the child’s official birth certificate determines if the child is a boy or girl, which is based on biology. It’s a simple and uniform way to ensure every student is treated the same.

Question: What if a student wants more privacy and doesn’t want to use their designated bathroom?

Answer: Parents can request accommodation for their student through the school. School officials must offer reasonable options for alternative facilities. This can include a single occupancy bathroom or changing room, but the school cannot allow the student to use a bathroom that is designated for the opposite sex if a student of the opposite sex is present or could be present.

Question: What do schools have to do to comply with the law?

Answer: Schools need to be sure their bathrooms and changing rooms are designated for either boys or girls. A single occupancy bathroom or changing room can be designated for anyone as long as only one person occupies the room at a time. Schools are not required to close bathrooms or change the construction of their facilities; they must simply designate bathroom and changing facility use based on biology on the child’s birth certificate. The biological standard for facility use has been in force in our nation since 1887 and has only recently come into question.

Question: What if I believe a school is not following the law?

Answer: If you believe a school is not following the law it is easy to address the issue. First, provide written notice to the school describing the violation. If the school does not address the issue within three days, you can file a complaint with the Iowa Attorney General’s office. The Attorney General will investigate and take appropriate action.

This legislation is about protecting the privacy and safety of our children in school and on school field trips. It keeps politics out of bathrooms and changing facilities and allows our students to focus on learning without loss of privacy and safety resulting from ideology not rooted in science.

I am honored to serve as your State Representative. You can email me at steven.holt@legis.iowa.gov

Over the last few days, the issue I have heard about most in messages left on my phone, in texts and in emails, is stopping the use of eminent domain for the CO2 pipeline projects. The common question is, “what more can we do to get the Senate to pass HF565?” Good question. HF565 was overwhelmingly passed by the House, and creates strong protections against the use of eminent domain for the CO2 pipeline private economic development projects. Unfortunately, it was not advanced by the Senate before the final funnel deadline.

The Iowa Republican Platform states, “We oppose federal or state government taking private property away from the owner for the use of another private party. Eminent domain should be used only for public use.” This fundamental principle in my party’s platform recognizes the increasing abuse of government power through the seizure of private property for the economic gain of others, and stands boldly in support of George Washington’s perspective on the linkage between private property and liberty, when he said, “Freedom and Property Rights are inseparable. You can’t have one without the other.” Why then, did protections not pass in the Senate?

This is as black and white as any issue I have seen debated in my nine years of service in the House. Right and wrong in this debate is crystal clear, and a recent poll shows overwhelming opposition to the use of eminent domain for the CO2 pipelines, because Iowans get that the issues at stake go beyond economic arguments and dire industry declarations.

Some folks are using smoke and mirrors and predictions of gloom to confuse this debate. Perhaps it is the mission orientation that comes from 20 years in the Marine Corps that causes me to “cut to the chase” on issues, to look at what is fundamental and at the heart of the matter. This is pretty simple. It is not about whether the pipeline should be built or not, or the questionable science upon which this is based; it is not about whether ethanol lives or dies based on the proposed pipelines; or whether it makes sense to bury a marketable product under the ground. Nope, this boils down to one question: Should eminent domain be used to strip away the private property of my fellow citizens so that that it can be given to another private party for economic development? Easy answer: Hell No.

Remember the words of Washington. Freedom and property rights are inseparable. Freedom ceases to exist without the right of private property. Regardless of how much these proposed projects might benefit ethanol, regardless of how much they might benefit agriculture, regardless of how much money the investors involved stand to make off of taxpayer funded credits, the heart of the matter remains the same: Eminent domain should only be used for public use, and folks, this is not a public use project. The pipelines should therefore be built using voluntary easements, and not by allowing private investors to use government power to seize the property of others.

As to why every Republican is not on board with protecting private property rights in this case, there are a number of factors. Some believe these projects are essential for agriculture in Iowa and therefore they believe this justifies the use of eminent domain; some believe the pipelines fit the “public use” standard; some believe there is already a process in place and the Legislature should not pass additional requirements; and some have other motivations for opposing these protections. I respect these viewpoints, but I respectfully do not agree, and I have rebutted these arguments at length in past newsletters and in my remarks during floor debate. My position remains rooted in what is at the heart of the matter and captured in my party’s platform: “We oppose federal or state government taking private property away from the owner for the use of another private party. Eminent domain should be used only for public use.”

I will continue to do all I can and use the tools at my disposal to stand up against the use of eminent domain for private economic development projects. Stripping away the private property rights of an American citizen for another’s economic gain destroys a fundamental birthright we all share as Americans, a right Washington pointed out is inextricably linked to our future as a free people. No amount of economic gain is worth surrendering this birthright, a fundamental liberty we fought a Revolutionary War to secure.

As to what more can be done to secure the protections for private property in HF565, we must use our voices, as I am doing now, to stand up against this assault on the private property rights of our fellow citizens. If the right of private property is not secure for all of us, it is secure for none of us.   A magic wand to show us the way would certainly make things easier, but none of us has one. What we do have as Americans and Iowans is the torch of liberty to light our way. It has served us pretty well since 1776.

I am proud to serve as your State Representative. You can email me at steven.holt@legis.iowa.gov

Senate File 75 – Rural Emergency Hospitals

• Establishes licensure in Iowa for Rural Emergency Hospitals.
• This was a priority bill for the Republican caucus from Day 1 of the 2023 Legislative Session.
• A rural emergency hospital is a health care facility that maintains a 24-hour emergency room, but does not include acute inpatient care.
• Establishing licensure in Iowa for this kind of health care facility allows these facilities to be more successful by receiving reimbursement from Medicare and Medicaid at a higher rate.

HF 135 – Student Right to Know

• This legislation is aimed at providing more transparency for students at the state’s Regent Universities.
• This bipartisan initiative requires the Board of Regents to publish a report that includes information on income and debt calculations for students, to allow them to make an informed choice as to the career path they choose. I was excited to floor-manage this legislation. It now heads to the Senate for consideration.

House File 623 – Prohibition on Gender Procedures on Children

• This legislation prohibits transgender surgeries and harmful hormonal therapy from being used on Iowa children.
• Two hospital systems in Iowa perform these therapies or surgeries on children. Unity Point provides hormone therapy and puberty blockers, and UIHC provides hormone therapy, puberty blockers as well as top surgery to children.
• Importantly, there is very limited data available on the long-term effects of these types of treatment. The few studies that have tracked long-term effects do not support the idea that this treatment lowers the rate of suicide in transgender individuals. On the contrary, the only thing that is clear is that suicide is reduced when children are allowed to go through puberty, when 80-95% will return to identifying with the gender of their biology. Otherwise, studies show that those who have had these treatments are 7 to 20 times more likely to commit suicide.
• Children are just too young to make these permanent, life-changing decisions.
• Under current practice, these children are being allowed, or even encouraged, to make these permanent decisions, with life altering consequences such as sterilization, before they have been given the opportunity to grow up and learn more about themselves.
• This law will help give Iowa children the time to mature and grow into themselves before making such a life-altering decision. I floor-managed this legislation to passage with great concern for the safety of our children. This bill is headed to the Governor’s desk.

House File 348 – Gender Identity/Sexual Orientation Curriculum

• This legislation will prohibit any classroom instruction on gender identity and sexual orientation in K-6th grade.
• We send our kids to school to learn subjects such as reading, writing, math and science. This bill will allow teachers to use their time on those topics and leave discussions on social issues to parents.
• Teachers should teach and parents should parent.
• Second graders in Ames were told they could choose to be a boy, girl, both, neither or something else. This is unacceptable This legislation is not intended to stop all discussion, but rather to prohibit instruction, curriculum or promotion of these topics in school.
• Students with same-sex parents or teachers in a same-sex marriage would not be limited from talking about those relationships.

HF 597 – Removing Sexually Explicit Materials from Schools

• This legislation is intended to restrict sexually explicit material in Iowa schools.
• This bill requires that all books in school libraries must be age appropriate and expands the definition of age appropriate in code to include what is NOT age appropriate.
• Age appropriate does not include any material with graphic descriptions or visual depictions of a sex act.
• I apologize for the graphic nature of this discussion, but because of the very graphic books that have been found in Iowa schools, I want to be clear about what we’re talking about. A sex act in this legislation is defined as:
  • “penetration of the penis into the vagina or anus; contact between the mouth and genitalia or by contact between the genitalia of one person and the genitalia or anus of another person; contact between the finger or hand of one person and the genitalia or anus of another person.” There are additional specifics but I believe the point is made.
• I still cannot believe that this is legislation we needed to pass, but it was. Unfortunately, books that contain graphic images and passages of exactly the types of sexual acts prohibited in this legislation have been found in Iowa schools.
• If you are skeptical that this material could possibly be in Iowa schools, please take the time to view the passages and images from these three examples using your search engine for these titles:
  • Let’s Talk About It contains sexually explicit illustrations with instructions, tips and suggestions on how to perform various sex acts along with masturbation.  The book also suggests safe ways to consume porn.
  • Gender Queer contains graphic illustrations of oral sex.
  • Push contains detailed and disturbing instances of incest and sexual molestation.

Iowa children, under current practice, could be subjected to untested and unproven gender reassignment procedures and therapies that result in permanent physical changes, lifetime mental conflict, and increased risk of suicide. In some Iowa schools, which should be places of wholesome learning, our children are being exposed to explicit, disgusting materials for which there is no justification. Additionally, some educators have chosen to use our places of learning for indoctrination centers, without accountability. This week, Iowa House Republicans responded decisively on these issues, and the message is clear – enough is enough. More must be done, so stay tuned.

On Thursday February 23rd the House Government Oversight Committee, of which I am a part, questioned Dr. Katie Imborek, Professor of Family Medicine and Co-Director of the University of Iowa LGBTQ+ Clinic, and Dr. Dave Williams, Chief Medical Officer for UnityPoint Health. They were questioned on issues related to transgender surgeries, procedures and treatments for patients under the age of 18 performed at their institutions.

Representative Brooke Boden, Chair of the Committee, also inquired with Mercy One and Broadlawns, but neither organization performs these procedures or treatments on minors.

University of Iowa LBGTQ+ Clinic performs mastectomies for female minors wishing to transition to male. The clinic’s services also include cross-sex hormone therapy and puberty blockers for children. It is important to note that this is all done with parental consent. The clinic does not perform genital surgeries on minors.

UnityPoint Health does not perform any transgender surgeries on minors. It does provide hormone therapy and puberty blockers to minors with parental consent.

Questions from Republican members of the Committee focused on several themes:

·        First, Republicans questioned whether providing gender transition to minors violates the first duty of medicine: do no harm. Cross-sex hormones have long-term irreversible side effects such as infertility, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and risk of stroke. Puberty blockers are described as completely reversible, yet they come with the risk of sterilization, osteoporosis and decreased growth spurts. Surgical procedures are irreversible. If a minor female has her breasts removed and then realizes it was a mistake, she cannot have her breasts reattached.

·        Second, while parental consent is required for these procedures and therapies, Republicans questioned if it is truly informed consent. Minors are not old enough to get a tattoo, buy cigarettes, or drink alcohol. The prefrontal cortex – the part of the brain responsible for rational decision-making is not fully developed until age 25. As a society, we have already determined that minors are not mature enough to make many life-altering decisions, yet current practice allows teens to make these irreversible determinations on therapies and procedures, including the removal of healthy body parts.

·        Third, Republicans advanced the belief, supported by mountains of information, that the data and evidence simply do not support the safety or effectiveness of gender transition services. The British Medical Journal (https://www.bmj.com/content/380/bmj.p382) ran an article on February 23rd, 2023, which contained the following important facts:

“Sweden’s National Board of Health and Welfare, which sets guidelines for care, determined last year that the risks of puberty blockers and treatment with hormones “currently outweigh the possible benefits” for minors. Finland’s Council for Choices in Health Care, a monitoring agency for the country’s public health services, issued similar guidelines, calling for psychosocial support as the first line treatment.

Medical societies in France, Australia, and New Zealand have also leant away from early medicalization. And NHS England, which is in the midst of an independent review of gender identity services, recently said that there was “scarce and inconclusive evidence to support clinical decision making” for minors with gender dysphoria and that for most who present before puberty it will be a “transient phase,” requiring clinicians to focus on psychological support and to be “mindful” even of the risks of social transition.

Sweden conducted systematic reviews in 2015 and 2022 and found the evidence on hormonal treatment in adolescents “insufficient and inconclusive.” Its new guidelines note the importance of factoring the possibility that young people will detransition, in which case “gender confirming treatment thus may lead to a deteriorating of health and quality of life (i.e., harm).”

In 2022 the state of Florida’s Agency for Health Care Administration commissioned an overview of systematic reviews looking at outcomes “important to patients” with gender dysphoria, including mental health, quality of life, and complications. Two health research methodologists at McMaster University carried out the work, analyzing systematic reviews and concluding that “there is great uncertainty about the effects of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries in young people.” The body of evidence, they said, was “not sufficient” to support treatment decisions.”

Further supporting our deep concerns as to the efficacy of these procedures is this perspective from Roger Hiatt, Jr., M.D., a child and adolescent psychiatrist with more than thirty years of experience working with thousands of troubled youth, including hundreds struggling with the issue of Gender Dysphoria: “Suicidality is a close companion of transgender identity throughout the life cycle. Despite all medical and surgical efforts, the suicide rate among transgender individuals is documented to be about 19 times higher than for those who embrace their chromosomal sex. The only outcome that actually results in decreased suicidality is “desistance,” or a return to gender identity consistent with biological reality. The pivotal event leading to children abandoning a transgender identity is the onset of puberty. Puberty blockers thus adversely impact the probability of the very outcome with the most favorable prognosis. While 80-90% of affected kids will desist without these interventions, almost all who initiate puberty blockers will continue to identify as the opposite sex into adulthood. Efforts to medicalize this psychiatric disorder rob otherwise healthy youth of the opportunity to rediscover their innate biology and instead doom them to a lifetime as medical patients in pursuit of an impossible dream: a change in biological sex.”

Dr. Hiatt’s statement that most children that reach puberty will return to gender identity consistent with their biological sex is echoed by the American College of Pediatricians. Its studies show that 80-95 percent of children who experience gender dysphoria will accept their biological sex by late adolescence. However, if puberty is blocked by medication, this obviously changes the outcome, and not in a good way.

It must also be noted in this discussion, as some doctors demand that they be allowed to continue these procedures, and that legislation should not interfere with the doctor-patient relationship, that the history of medical science is replete with disproven interventions once held in high regard by the medical establishment. These include leeches, frontal lobotomies, and physician tested and approved cigarette brands, just to name a few.

Just recently (08/2020), The American Journal of Psychiatry was compelled to retract a study erroneously affirming that hormones and surgery yielded significant improvement in mental health for gender incongruent patients, stating, “Our conclusion based on the findings at hand in the article, which used neither a prospective cohort design nor a randomized controlled trial design, was too strong.”

Due to the lack of conclusive evidence that these therapies and surgeries are ultimately effective, and the unacceptably high risk of doing harm to our children, based a growing collection of evidence, I authorized House Study Bill 214 to move forward. This legislation will prohibit the use of hormone therapy, puberty blockers and irreversible surgeries on children (minors under age 18) in Iowa. I am floor-manager of this legislation, and it passed out of Judiciary Committee at the end of Week 8. It is now eligible for debate by the full House.

I am hopeful we will move quickly to pass these important protections for our young people.

Our first action in keeping our promises to Iowans was to pass the Governor’s Student’s First Act, bringing real school choice to all the citizens of Iowa. There have been a number of distortions and lots of disinformation put out by those opposed to greater parental choice in education. I think it important to set the record straight about how the program works, how it fits in with our commitment to support the great equalizer that is public education, claims about school choice that are not supported by facts, and what has happened in other parts of the state outside District 12 that has forced the issue of school choice.

How It Works & Fits With Public Education:

Key provisions of the STUDENTS FIRST ACT include:

· Parents who choose to enroll their children in an accredited private school will receive $7,598 for approved educational expenses, the amount of per pupil funding currently allocated annually by the state for each student. Parents can use these funds for tuition, fees, and other qualified expenses at an accredited private school. This funding will flow through a third-party vendor selected by the Board of Education. This system never places the funds directly into the parent’s hands, but rather the funds go from a savings account straight to the educational institution.

· Other student funding generated by categorical state funding formulas will remain with public school districts. It is estimated that Iowa’s public schools will retain about $1,205 per pupil in categorical funding for each student who resides in their district but chooses to attend a private school. Since public schools currently receive no funding for students enrolled in a private school, this would be an increase in funding.

· The Students First Act also allows public school districts the flexibility to use unspent and ongoing funding from Teacher Leadership and Compensation, Professional Development, and Talented & Gifted categorical funds for increasing teacher salaries. There is currently almost $100 million statewide in unspent funds in these categoricals and almost $250 million is allocated to them each year.

Claims & Facts:

Claim: Public money should not be used for private schools.
Facts: Taxpayer money, often referred to in this discussion as public money, already goes to many private entities all over the state and nation. We do not require WIC or SNAP recipients to use government grocery stores. Medicare recipients are not forced to use only government hospitals. We have Pell Grants for education that are used at private institutions. Here in Iowa, the Iowa Tuition Grant has been used for years to fund students going to private colleges. The Governor’s school choice initiative extends what we do for college students to K-12 students.

Claim: Data shows that school choice does not improve student outcomes.
Facts: As is the case with almost every controversial issue, you can find data to support both sides of an argument. However, I believe the data on school choice convincingly shows that both private and public-school outcomes improve where school choice is present. The vast majority of studies support this conclusion.

Claim: Private Schools do not take special needs students.
Facts: Studies show that a large percentage of students in private schools in other states with school choice programs have special needs. There are also special needs students in Iowa’s private schools. Additionally, once private schools have access to increased funding with the creation of school choice, they could potentially increase their support of students with special needs.

Claim: Private Schools discriminate against certain students while public schools take all students.
Facts: While it is certainly true that public schools take almost all students, private schools exist to meet a variety of needs of families who want something other than what public schools offer. Educational Savings Accounts have been found constitutional in numerous court cases. The funding is placed in a savings account to be used by the student at the accredited private school that best fits their needs and does not go directly from the government to the school.

Claim: Accredited private schools lack accountability requirements.
Facts: Accredited private schools have numerous annual reporting and accreditation requirements. Ultimately, answering to parents is the most important measure of accountability, because parents can measure success for their children far better than government agencies ever could.

Claim: School Choice will destroy or weaken public schools.
Facts: In states where aggressive school choice programs have existed for over twenty years, only about 6% of students attend private schools. On average it is a very small percentage of students who leave public schools for private schools when these programs go into effect (1-3%). Of those percentages, even smaller amounts leave rural public schools.

Claim: School choice is an attack on public-school teachers.
Facts: Iowa is blessed to have many resolute public-school teachers doing their best to meet the needs of their students in a challenging environment. We should pray for our teachers every day, while working to find ways to help them be more successful. We must also reject the arguments of special interest groups that seek to confuse the issues before us. School choice does not in any way take away from the work our public-school teachers are doing. We can support public education and public-school teachers, while also embracing positive change.

Claim: The state cannot afford school choice.
Facts: Statement from the Speaker of the Iowa House, Pat Grassley: “I’ve heard some people cite concerns about the cost of HSB 1. As former Appropriations chair, I can assure you that we would not pass any plan that our state cannot afford. House Republicans have a reputation at the Capitol for being very cautious when it comes to the state budget. This has not changed. When fully implemented in FY 29, the projected cost of this program is $341 million. In the same year, the state is projected to spend $3.9 BILLION on public education. Given current projections, in that same year the state will have a $3.1 BILLION ending balance and $3.7 BILLION in the Taxpayer Relief Fund. Ultimately, $341 million amounts to just 4% of the state’s annual budget. This program is not an existential threat to public education. Iowa can afford HSB 1.”

What is Driving School Choice:

Unfortunately, some of our public schools in Iowa are not always serving our students well. This is especially true in some urban schools. Teachers, parents, and students are reporting serious discipline problems in some schools, and a small number are listed as failing schools due to plummeting academic scores.

Regretfully, it is also true that some of our public schools are ignoring the concerns of parents and are engaging in disturbing indoctrination of children, even in elementary school. In the Ames Community School District, a poster was displayed in a second-grade classroom. It was titled “Transgender Affirming,” and contained what appeared to be an image of a male wearing female clothing. The caption stated, “Everybody has the right to choose their own gender by listening to their own heart and mind. Everyone gets to choose if they are a girl or a boy or both or neither or something else, and no one else gets to choose for them.” In the Linn-Mar District, the school policy allows children to gender transition and change their name while withholding this information from parents, who are ultimately responsible for their welfare and safety. It is these and other real issues in some school districts in Iowa that have resulted in hundreds of emails and documents from concerned parents arriving in the in-boxes of legislators, and we are committed to stopping it. Is it any wonder that school choice became the plea of so many parents in Iowa?

I have no doubt that most of our public teachers and public schools are doing their best to positively educate our children and they will be supported as we address the issues I have highlighted. School Choice is the first step, but we will also work to reform the Board of Education to ensure that our laws are followed, and we will work on legislation to stop the indoctrination of our children in some of our school districts.

Change is always difficult, and no one wants their cheese moved, and while I understand the concerns, I believe that our efforts will have a positive impact on education in Iowa.

Misconception: Public money should not be used for private schools.
Truth: Taxpayer money, often referred to in this discussion as public money, already goes to many private entities all over the state and nation. We do not require WIC or SNAP recipients to use public grocery stores. Medicare recipients are not forced to use only public hospitals. Here in Iowa, the Iowa Tuition Grant has been used for years to fund students going to private colleges. The Governor’s school choice proposals look very similar to the Iowa Tuition Grant, but for K-12 education. Iowa Tuition Grants allow Iowa students to have more choices and access when they select the university or college that best fits their needs. This is not much different from the Governor’s proposal for K-12 students, creating more choices for students and parents.

Misconception: School Choice will deny funding for public schools.
Truth: Under the Governor’s plan, for the first time, public schools will receive approximately $1,205 for every student from their district that is attending a private school. This has never been the case before. This amount will increase as categorical funding is increased. In the first year that a family chooses to send their child to a private school and receive this funding, public schools will still get the $7,598 they normally receive for a student, even though the student chooses to attend a private school. The state in effect will double-pay the first year, which will minimize any funding disruptions for public schools. After year one, the public school would continue to receive the approximately $1,205 in categorical funding from the state, even though the student is enrolled in a private school, but will no longer receive the $7,598, since those funds are following the child to the accredited school that best fits their needs. This means that the costs normally associated with that student will also leave the public school, with the public school now receiving the $1,205 for every student going to a private school.

The Governor’s proposals also allow public school districts more flexibility in being able to use some categorical funding to increase teacher salaries.

Misconception: Data shows that school choice does not improve student outcomes.
Truth: As is the case with almost every controversial issue, you can find data to support both sides of an argument. However, I believe the data on school choice convincingly shows that both private and public-school outcomes improve where school choice is present. The vast majority of studies support this conclusion. One study I reviewed reported that out of 17 studies of school choice participants, eleven reported an increase in student outcomes, four reported no change and only two reported negative effects. At the end of my newsletter, I will include several links to articles that show the positive outcomes of school choice.

Studies also suggest that when school choice is present, civic engagement increases, and parental satisfaction improves. Caroline Hoxby, an economics professor at Stanford University, found positive effects on the teaching profession from school choice programs.

Misconception: Private Schools do not take special needs students.
Truth: Studies show that a large percentage of students in private schools in Arizona, where school choice programs have existed for over two decades, have special needs. There are also special needs students in Iowa’s private schools. Additionally, once private schools have access to increased funding with the creation of school choice, they would likely be able to increase their support of students with special needs.

Misconception: Private Schools discriminate against certain students while public schools take all students.
Truth: While it is certainly true that public schools take almost all students, private schools exist to meet a variety of needs of families who want something other than what public schools offer. Perhaps it is a more faith-based approach, perhaps it is a focus on a certain academic specialty. If a need exists following the passage of school choice in Iowa, private schools are likely to be formed to meet those needs. Specialization is not discrimination but rather a different approach to meet the ever-changing needs of students.

Misconception: Accredited private schools lack accountability requirements.
Truth: Accredited private schools have numerous annual reporting requirements, which include:
-Enrollment numbers
-Gender and ethnicity of students
-Bullying data
-Accreditation requirements (health, safety, etc.)
-Reports to accrediting agencies which include teacher certifications, safety drills, progress on school improvement plans, independent audit/assessment of financials, and adherence to all laws related to nonpublic schools
-Title funding usage data and details
– Annual reports to parents and constituents that include financial data and student assessment scores. Answering to parents is the most important measure of accountability, for parents can measure success for their children far better than government agencies ever could.

Misconception: School Choice will destroy or weaken public schools.
Truth: This is the most misleading of all the claims made in opposition to school choice programs. In states such as Arizona, where aggressive school choice programs have existed for over twenty years, only about 5% of students attend private schools. On average it is a very small percentage of students who leave public schools for private schools when these programs go into effect (1-3%). Of those percentages, even smaller amounts leave rural public schools. There is not a single public school in the nation that has closed its doors because of school choice.

If in fact, a huge number of students were to leave public schools to attend accredited private schools, then it becomes profoundly clear just how important it was that we gave parents greater choice, since such an exodus would lay bare the reality that these schools were not meeting the needs of our students.

Myth: School choice is an attack on public-school teachers.
Truth: Iowa is blessed to have many resolute public-school teachers doing their best to meet the needs of their students in an environment that worsens by the day. They have lost most of the tools necessary to maintain discipline in the classroom, and the breakdown of our families has forced schools to take on an ever-increasing level of responsibility, with teachers having to deal with behavioral issues that make their jobs incredibly challenging. We should pray for our teachers every day, while working to find ways to help them be more successful. We must also reject the arguments of special interest groups that seek to confuse the issues before us. School choice does not in any way take away from the work our public-school teachers are doing. Ultimately, we must not simply fund the status quo if we are to improve education. It is past time to fund our students, not the education establishment.

We can support public education and public-school teachers, while also embracing positive change. Let’s choose our students and families over the education bureaucracy that seeks to protect itself by rejecting innovative ideas that will improve education for all.

Myth: The state cannot afford school choice.
Truth: Statement from the Speaker of the Iowa House, Pat Grassley: “I’ve heard some people cite concerns about the cost of HSB 1. As former Appropriations chair, I can assure you that we would not pass any plan that our state cannot afford. House Republicans have a reputation at the Capitol for being very cautious when it comes to the state budget. This has not changed. When fully implemented in FY 29, the projected cost of this program is $341 million. In the same year, the state is projected to spend $3.9 BILLION on public education. Given current projections, in that same year the state will have a $3.1 BILLION ending balance and $3.7 BILLION in the Taxpayer Relief Fund. Ultimately, $341 million amounts to just 4% of the state’s annual budget. This program is not an existential threat to public education. Iowa can afford HSB 1.”

I look forward to Republicans in the House and Senate taking decisive action soon to bring school choice to Iowa by passing HSB1, the Governor’s STUDENTS FIRST ACT.

I am honored to serve as your State Representative. You can email me at steven.holt@legis.iowa.gov

LINKS ON SCHOOL CHOICE:

The evidence is clear – education choice improves outcomes | Education | belgrade-news.com

3 Reasons to Support School Choice – Foundation for Economic Education (fee.org)

Parental choice in education and improving public schools will be one of the top priorities for Republicans this session. The House commitment to get this done is clearly evident in the creation of a special Education Reform Committee, with its members being the leadership of the House – Speaker Pat Grassley, House Majority Leader Matt Windschitl and Speaker Pro Tempore John Wills, as well as the Democrat Minority Leader. The sense of urgency on this issue is also apparent, as the Governor’s STUDENTS FIRST ACT (HSB 1) was our very first bill and was assigned the day after the Governor’s Condition of the State address.

Key provisions of the STUDENTS FIRST ACT include:

• Parents who choose to enroll their children in an accredited private school will receive $7,598 for approved educational expenses, the amount of per pupil funding currently allocated annually by the state for each student. Parents can use these funds for tuition, fees, and other qualified expenses at an accredited private school. This funding will flow through a system that never places the funds directly into the parent’s hands, but rather goes straight to the educational institution.
• Other student funding generated by categorical state funding formulas will remain with public school districts. It is estimated that Iowa’s public schools will retain about $1,205 per pupil in categorical funding for each student who resides in their district but chooses to attend a private school. Since public schools currently receive no funding for students enrolled in a private school, this would be an increase in funding.
• In the first year that a family chooses to send their child to a private school and receive this funding, public schools will still get the $7,598 they normally receive for a student, even though the student chooses to attend a private school. The state in effect will double-pay the first year, which will minimize any funding disruptions for public schools. This is also made necessary by federal requirements related to how public-school students are counted each year. After year one, the public school would continue to receive approximately $1,205 in categorical funding from the state, even though the student is enrolled in a private school, but will no longer receive the $7,598, since those funds are following the child to the accredited school that best fits their needs. It is past time that we fund the student in a way that will help ensure the best educational outcome.
• All students currently attending public school and kindergarten would be eligible for this program in the 2023-24 school year.
• For students already attending an accredited private school, the program would be phased in over a period of three years. In Year 1 (2023-24), accredited private school students at or below 300% of the federal poverty level would be eligible ($83,250 income for a family of four). In Year 2 (2024-25), accredited private school students at or below 400% of the federal poverty level would qualify ($111,000 income for a family of four). In Year 3 (2025-26), all students, regardless of income, would qualify. Let’s remember that we all pay taxes for education, even those citizens that do not have children. Those taxes are paid to the state regardless of income. I believe, therefore, that it is fair that every parent, regardless of income, should have the opportunity to use this system to send their child to an educational institution that best fits their needs.
• The bill also gives public school districts the flexibility to use unspent and ongoing funding from Teacher Leadership and Compensation, Professional Development, and Talented & Gifted categorical funds for increasing teacher salaries. There is currently almost $100 million statewide in unspent funds in these categorical accounts and almost $250 million is allocated to them each year.

Public education funding in Iowa has grown over a billion dollars since Fiscal Year 2012. Unfortunately, some of our public schools are not serving our students well. Teachers, parents, and students are reporting egregious discipline problems in some schools, and a small number are listed as failing schools due to plummeting scores.

Unfortunately, it is also true that some of our public schools have now embraced an ideology that they in fact own the children and know better than parents. Parents that challenge the indoctrination of their students in Anti-American ideology and LGBT objectives that are contrary to their values are increasingly ignored and villainized by a growing number of school districts in Iowa. I know this because I have received hundreds of emails and spoken to numerous parents frustrated and frightened for the future of their children and their country. They are often ignored, berated, silenced, and in some cases villainized by arrogant school personnel who consider themselves “professionals” who can dismiss the concerns of parents. This is not only wrong; it is profoundly dangerous for the future of our Republic. Government institutions do not own our children and have no right to inject themselves between children and parents by assaulting the values of families and ignoring the authority of parents.

In a growing number of our public schools, obviously obscene books that have no place in a school library because they are not age-appropriate are defended and usually kept on the shelves by a process stacked against concerned parents. Meanwhile, some teachers in these districts gleefully promote these books to their students, in defiance of the concerns of parents.

Some schools choose to ignore prohibitions against the teaching of Critical Race Theory, with school officials caught on tape bragging about how they work around the law to advance their agenda. The Board of Education has had the opportunity to enforce the law and hold wrongdoers accountable; unfortunately, they have chosen not to do so.

I have stated repeatedly in my newsletters that superintendents and administrators doing it right should speak to those doing it wrong in Iowa, which could have resulted in self-reflection and a course correction. Unfortunately, this either has not happened, or the warnings have not been heeded. Combine these facts with the need to ensure that students are allowed to flourish in an educational setting that best fits their needs and the path is clear: we must fundamentally change how we fund education, and that begins with funding the student, as opposed to funding the educational establishment.

The hysteria that School Choice will destroy, or damage public schools is not supported by facts, as states with aggressive school choice programs in place for over two decades see only about 5% of students attend private schools. If in fact, a huge number of students were to leave public schools to attend accredited private schools, then it becomes profoundly clear just how important it was that we gave parents greater choice, since such an exodus would lay bare the reality that these schools were failing our students. I believe that most of our public schools are doing it right, and for those that are not, the wake-up call is coming.

Discussions have just begun and changes to this plan are possible as we move through the process, but I am committed to passing school choice, in addition to education reforms to make our public schools stronger and better, since the vast majority of our students will continue to attend public schools. For many in rural districts happy with their schools and great teachers, because they are doing it right, you can rest assured, in spite of the coming hysteria, that school choice options in other states have improved education outcomes in both public and private schools.

I will leave you with excerpts from Education as a Battlefield by Hillsdale College President Larry P. Arnn. In future newsletters, I will highlight other proposals to improve public schools and return accountability to parents, as well as our efforts to reform property taxes and push back on the extreme leftist agenda that threatens our families and the future of our Republic.

I am honored to serve as your State Representative. You can email me at steven.holt@legis.iowa.gov

Excerpts from Education as a Battleground
–Larry P. Arnn (President, Hillsdale College)
“Public education is as old as our nation – but only lately has it adopted the purpose of supplanting the family and controlling parents.

One can look in history or in literature to see the danger of where the idea of supplanting the family might lead. Study the education practices that existed in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany and that exist today in Communist China. Or read the terrifying account in Orwell’s 1984. They tell us that children, by distorting their natural desire to grow up and end their dependence, can be recruited to the purposes of despotic regimes, even to the extent of denouncing their parents to the state.

We do not yet have this in America. But we do have children being turned against their country by being indoctrinated to look on its past – of which all parents, of course, are in some way a part – as a shameful time of irredeemable injustice. We also increasingly have children being encouraged to speak of their sexual proclivities at an age when they can hardly think of them.

To cite just one example, Christopher Rufo has discovered, on the website of the Michigan Department of Education, detailed instructions for how teachers should open the question with students of their sexual orientation – or maybe I should say sexual direction, since “orientation” implies something constant, whereas children are now being taught that sexuality is “fluid” and can take them anywhere.

Also on the website are detailed instructions on how to keep this activity from parents. And as we learned last year, when parents get angry, the FBI is likely to become interested.

Who “owns” the child then? The choice is between the parents, who have taken the trouble to have and raise the child – and who, in almost all cases, will give their lives to support the child for as long as it takes and longer – or the educational bureaucracy, which is more likely than a parent to look upon the child as an asset in a social engineering project to rearrange government and society.

The revolutionary force behind this social engineering project is a set of ideas installed in just about every university today. Its smiting arm is the administrative state, an element of America’s ruling class. The administrative state has something over 20 million employees, many of them at the federal but most at the state level. Directly and indirectly, they make rules about half the economy, which means they affect all of it.

I have said and written many times that the political contest between parents and people who make an independent living, on the one hand, and the administrative state and all its mighty forces on the other, is the key political contest of our time. Today that seems truer than ever. The lines are clearly formed.

As long as representative institutions work in response to the public will, there is thankfully no need for violence. As the Declaration of Independence says, “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes.”

The Declaration guides us in our peaceful pursuits, too. In naming the causes of the American Revolution, it gives a guide to maintaining free and responsible government. The long middle section of the Declaration accuses the King of interfering with representative government, violating the separation of powers, undermining the independence of the Judiciary, and failing to suppress violence.

And in an apposite phrase it says of the King: “He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.”

So it is today. And so it is our duty to defend our American way of life.”