The House Education Committee in Ohio’s Assembly, recently recommended legislation, HB136, that provides for a radical expansion of Ohio’s EdChoice program. Currently, 60,000 Ohio students, from failing schools, may receive “vouchers” for tuition to attend private schools. Almost all of the eligible private schools are religious schools. HB136, if passed into law, will make over one million Ohio students eligible for vouchers, from all of Ohio school systems. Tax generated state funding now received by local public school systems will, instead, fund these vouchers for use in private schools.

Vouchers have long been a pet project of political thinkers who view themselves as “Libertarians,” but, in fact, there is a division in Libertarian thinking about the issue of vouchers, and some Libertarians are strongly opposed.  Libertarian thinker, Laurence M. Vance, for example, predicts, “Vouchers will make the present system worse. Rather than increasing educational opportunity, vouchers will increase the government’s grip on education, increase the costs of education, increase people’s dependency on the state, and increase the overall power of the state.”

The grandfather of voucher advocacy is Nobel prize winner, Milton Friedman. In this video clip, made in 2006, shortly before his death at age 94, Friedman condemns the deplorable state of public education as a “disgrace” that undermines a “decent free society,” and says the route to reforming the present system is to use the power of the free market:

It is not a public purpose is to build brick schools and have students there. The public purpose is to provide education. You are a producer,  producing a product. And if you want to subsidize the production of that product, there are two ways you can do it. You can subsidize the producer, or you can subsidize the consumer. In education we subsidize the producer, we subsidize the school. If you subsidize the student, instead, you would have competition.  The student would choose, which school he would go to. And that would force schools to improve.

Some Libertarian thinkers, however, like Vance, cited above, believe that, on this issue, the highly revered Friedman is flat wrong:

• Marshall Fritz in Can you say “en·ti’·tle·ment?” states, “Twelve percent of America’s schoolchildren are not on the school dole. Their parents are financially responsible for their children’s schooling, some at great personal sacrifice. The voucher approach will seduce many of them onto the school dole. … State-granted vouchers would make welfare recipients out of many of those 12% who have managed so far to resist the temptation to have others pay for their children’s education.”
• Marshall Fritz in What About Vouchers? states, “Vouchers are still state financing of schools, which comes with endless meddling, regulations, strings attached rules about what can be taught, said, displayed, who can be hired, testing requirements, not to mention continued dependence on government for our preparation for life. It wouldn’t be long before a private school system turned into another top-heavy, enslaved, mediocre government system. It’s the nature of the beast. “
• Jacob G. Hornberger, in Libertarian Paternalism, states, “Vouchers are the antithesis of libertarianism, whose genuine principles dictate a complete separation of school and state, just as libertarianism calls, for example, for a complete separation of church and state. After all, can you imagine libertarians calling for a mixed system of state churches, private churches, charter churches, and church vouchers and suggesting to people that that is what libertarianism is all about?”
• Ari Armstrong, in A Libertarian Case Against Vouchers, states, “But won’t private schools be better off with vouchers? No, they will merely become more regulated by the government. Entities that accept tax dollars are subject to government regulations — or they soon will be. Conservatives who doubt this need only imagine the public outcry when a school associated with Satanism, radical Islam, or David Koresh-style Christianity applies for tax dollars. Taxpayers will also demand that subsidized schools meet certain politically-determined academic standards. Tax subsidies very quickly turn into puppet strings.”

The constitutionality of Ohio’s present voucher system, originally limited to poverty schools in Cleveland, was established in a landmark Supreme Court 5-4 ruling in 2002, Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, that held that the plan did not violate the Constitutions’ establishment of religion clause.

Justice Stevens in his dissent stated: “Whenever we remove a brick from the wall that was designed to separate religion and government, we increase the risk of religious strife and weaken the foundation of our democracy.”

Justice Souter in his dissent, developed the Libertarian argument that vouchers will mean government control and a degradation of freedom in private schools.  He wrote, “When government aid goes up, so does reliance on it; the only thing likely to go down is independence.” He wrote:

In Ohio, for example, a condition of receiving government money under the program is that participating religious schools may not “discriminate on the basis of … religion,” Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §3313.976(A)(4) (West Supp. 2002), which means the school may not give admission preferences to children who are members of the patron faith; children of a parish are generally consigned to the same admission lotteries as non-believers, §§3313.977(A)(1)(c)—(d). This indeed was the exact object of a 1999 amendment repealing the portion of a predecessor statute that had allowed an admission preference for “[c]hildren … whose parents are affiliated with any organization that provides financial support to the school, at the discretion of the school.” §313.977(A)(1)(d) (West 1999). Nor is the State’s religious antidiscrimination restriction limited to student admission policies: by its terms, a participating religious school may well be forbidden to choose a member of its own clergy to serve as teacher or principal over a layperson of a different religion claiming equal qualification for the job.23  Cf. National Catholic Educational Association, Balance Sheet for Catholic Elementary Schools: 2001 Income and Expenses 25 (2001) (“31% of [reporting Catholic elementary and middle] schools had at least one full-time teacher who was a religious sister”). Indeed, a separate condition that “[t]he school … not … teach hatred of any person or group on the basis of … religion,” §3313.976(A)(6) (West Supp. 2002), could be understood (or subsequently broadened) to prohibit religions from teaching traditionally legitimate articles of faith as to the error, sinfulness, or ignorance of others,24  if they want government money for their schools.

 

Recent posts:

• Ohio’s Proposed Voucher Law HB136 — Should Tax Money Be Used To Fund Religious Education?, September 29th, 2011
• Kettering Treasurer Says Local Cost Of Voucher Plan, HB136, Is $2.5+ Million Yearly — 2+ Mills Of New Taxes, September 30th, 2011

Kettering School Treasurer, Steve Clark, estimates that, if Ohio House Bill 136 is approved, Kettering Schools will lose at least $2.5 million in state funding and, in order to recoup this lost revenue, the school district eventually will need an increase in local property tax of at least 2 mills.

HB136, also known as the Parental Choice and Taxpayer Savings Scholarship program (PACT), allows all of the state tax money allocated to a public school district to be spent on “vouchers,” to finance tuition to private schools. See my post: “Ohio’s Proposed Voucher Law HB136 — Should Tax Money Be Used To Fund Religious Education?”

HB136 has been approved by the House Education Committee and now will be debated by the entire House. Jim Butler, Kettering’s representative to the Ohio House, serves on the Education Committee and voted “Yes” to approve the legislation.

In a memo to the Kettering Board of Education, Mr. Clark explains that for every Kettering student who receives a voucher, $5,783 in state funding will be subtracted from funds that Kettering Schools would otherwise receive from the state. Parents would receive a fraction of this amount — depending on their family income. He explains, “Parents of voucher students would receive 40% to 80% of the $5,783 withheld from KCSD. The state would pocket the rest!”

Clark estimates that 443 of the 652 Kettering resident-students currently attending nonpublic schools in the district would be eligible for a PACT scholarship and warns that, because he has no data of how many KCSD resident-students attend nonpublic schools outside of the district, the financial lost could be higher. All of the resident-students would be eligible to apply for PACT scholarships, and each scholarship would subtract funds from Kettering Schools.

In addition, because of the prospect of receiving free tax money, a whole new set of students may decide to leave Kettering Schools and enroll in a private school. If all of the state money allocated to Kettering Schools would be diverted to PACT scholarships, Kettering Public Schools could lose 20% of its student population.

Mr. Clark concludes his memo: “It might be a good idea to contact your state representatives and let them know how you feel about this proposed law, before the full Ohio House of Representatives votes on it.”

Ohio’s Republican dominated Assembly seems intent on raising the ante concerning privatization of public education. The Education Committee of the Ohio House has approved radical legislation, HB136, that, if ratified by the Ohio Assembly, would greatly expand the current state funded “voucher” program. HB136 makes the entire amount of state money now allocated to local schools available to fund tuition for private schools, enough to fund the private school education of over one million students.

Ohio’s current voucher plan — The EdChoice Scholarship Program — according to ODE, is limited, “to students who attend persistently underperforming public schools. The scholarship, sometimes called a voucher, must be used to attend a participating chartered nonpublic school.” This past June, Governor Kasich signed legislation that greatly increase the number of vouchers in Ohio from 14,000 to 60,000.

In the new voucher plan, students in all Ohio school districts, high performing as well as low, may claim the state money now allocated to the district they attend to pay for tuition to private schools. The amount of the scholarship a student may claim will vary, depending on the family income of the participating student, but, it looks like the average voucher will be about $4500 per child per year.

Greg at Plunderbund has an interesting analysis of HB136 that uses my neighboring school district in South Dayton, Centerville, as an example. Centerville is rated as “Excellent with Distinction.” If HB136 is ratified, the entire $9.6 million that Centerville receives each year in state funding will be made available to pay for tuition to private schools. Scholarships will be worth about $4,626 per student, per year. If the entire $9.6 million is spent on private school tuition vouchers, 24% of Centerville’s students could leave Centerville public school and attend a private school. The dollar amount of vouchers provided to Centerville students will be subtracted from the amount of state money allocated to Centerville public schools.

I’ve not read what provision HB136 makes for the potential situation of a school district having such great demand for private school vouchers that its available state money is not adequate, but, I’m guessing, some type of lottery would be used, as in “Waiting For Superman.”

Republican Matt Huffman from Allen County (Lima) is the main sponsor of HB136. Just last week, according to their web-site, “School Choice Ohio (SCO) recognized Representative Huffman as a ‘School Choice Champion’ and presented him with a seedling tree to represent the seeds of hope he is planting for thousands of families across Ohio. Representative Huffman is the first legislator to receive this prestigious award from SCO.”

The web-site states, “In addition, the event paid tribute to Dr. Milton Friedman, widely considered the ‘father of school choice.’ Two students spoke about their experiences using state scholarships to attend private school. One of the students, Derek Allen, is a recent Lima Central Catholic graduate.”

In a you-tube at the SCO web-site, Derek expresses thankfulness that, because of his EdChoice Scholarship, he was able to attend a first rate, academic school. Giving students, like Derek, the opportunity to flee a failing school and attend a successful private school sounds wonderful. The problem is, Derek, like most voucher recipients, used his tax financed scholarship to attend a religious school. Since over 90% of private schools in Ohio, right now, are religious schools, most all vouchers are used to fund religious education. The list of Ohio private schools accepting EdChoice vouchers shows that almost all of these private schools are church sponsored, religious schools.

I can’t understand why Republicans, who profess to be “conservatives,” would advocate using tax money to fund religious private education. HB136, as written, would fund religious private school education for students seeking to escape failing public school districts, and, it would fund religious private education for students who already are attending high performing public school districts, like Centerville.

The private school Derek attended with tax money says on its web-site that it is centered on accomplishing this purpose: “Our Mission:  Lima Central Catholic High School is committed to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, providing a faith-based education through quality academic artistic and athletic programs combined with opportunities for spiritual formation and growth.”

According to his bio, Matt Huffman is a Catholic, a member of the Knights of Columbus, so, evidently, using tax money to provide students with a “faith based education,” one, “committed to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church,” is something Huffman personally supports. But, I’ve got to wonder how he would feel about using public tax money to pay for tuition to a private Muslim school, one whose mission statement matched the fervor of Lima Central Catholic?  Or how would Mr. Huffman feel about using tax dollars to fund a private school whose mission was to advance a doctrine of atheism or Marxism? Remember, unlike public schools, private religious schools are free to severely limit the academic freedom of their teachers, free to demand that their teachers sign doctrinal agreements, free to dismiss teachers and students who fail to enthusiastically adhere to the doctrinal standards of the school.

The point worth debating is this: Is it good public policy to use tax money to pay for religious education? Is it a policy that respects the Constitution? Is is a policy that, by any stretch, could be considered “conservative”?

HB136 will accommodate students who are already attending private schools. The School Choice Ohio Blog reports:

Among the key changes in the amended bill is a provision restoring the eligibility of current private school students whose families meet the income eligibility guidelines. A previously introduced substitute bill would have made these students ineligible. This change brings more balance to parents across Ohio who are struggling to make ends meet while providing educational opportunities for their children.

The eligibility for private school students would again be phased-in over a four year period, beginning with kindergarten students in the 2012-2013 school year, students in grades K-4 in 2013-2014, students in grades K-8 in the 2014-2015 school year, and all students in grades K-12 in the 2015-2016 school year.

According to the web-site, “Follow the Money,” Matt Huffman, the sponsor of HB136, has received $27,500 in contributions from educational entrepreneurs David Brennen and his wife — the owners of “White Hat” Co.  Mr. Brennen is on record as advocating an increase in state vouchers. And Huffman has received $11,000 from William Lager,  of Altair Learning Management, operator of the on-line charter school, The Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow. Both Mr. Brennen and Mr. Lager have benefited handsomely from the tax money flowing to their charter schools. How nice of them to share.