Jan Resseger sees real problems with vouchers on the state and federal level, and she has some expert opinions to share. Reposted with permission.
Advocates for the privatization of public schooling are on the attack these days. Public education advocate, Jeff Bryant notes: “In what is being touted as the Golden Age of School Choice, the option that is most popular with American families—to fund and attend their local public schools—is gradually being made less viable.”
In his in-depth report, Bryant identifies the millions of dollars states are investing in private school tuition voucher schemes as a primary contributor to a growing public school finance crisis across the states. Comparing voucher growth in North Carolina and Ohio, Bryant identifies an important and frequently unnamed result of privatization: it contributes to the competitive politics around state school funding and local property taxes: “On the privatization front, Ohio is somewhat ahead of North Carolina, with 4.2 percent of the state’s students receiving some kind of voucher to attend a private school or homeschool… But Ohio’s privately operated school sector may have an even more negative impact on school funding… (E)fforts by Ohio lawmakers to undermine the state’s funding for public schools have put pressure on local governments to steeply raise property taxes, resulting in Ohio having the eighth-highest property tax rate in the U.S., Statehouse News Bureau reports. Understandably, there is now growing evidence of a popular uprising among Ohio voters to repeal property taxes….”
Last week for News5Cleveland, Katie Ussin described how all this is playing out in Mentor, Ohio, an exurb in the Cleveland area. After the state failed fully to fund a new public school finance formula in the recent state budget and currently plans to invest over a billion dollars on private school tuition vouchers every year, and because the school district has failed to pass a property tax levy in two different election cycles, Mentor has decided to join the Vouchers Hurt Ohio lawsuit, which is challenging the constitutionality of the state’s school privatization scheme. The district is desperate for funds. Ussin reports: “Mentor has committed to cutting $6.6 million (in school services) heading into this upcoming school year and is planning an additional $3.5 million in cuts the year after. The district also plans to go back on the ballot in November with a lower levy ask.” Mentor School Board president, Maggie Cook explains: “Joining the lawsuit isn’t really a public versus private school issue… It’s a taxpayer issue and it’s a school funding issue.” Despite the urgent need to fight to contain voucher growth, Mentor’s financial crisis means that the school district can’t afford to pay the $2 per student cost of becoming a plaintiff in the Vouchers Hurt Ohio lawsuit. In its desperation, the school district has been forced to turn to a Go Fund Me campaign in hopes of being able to join other school districts fighting against Ohio’s voucher program.
No longer only a state concern, vouchers are now a federal issue as well. A federal tuition tax credit private school voucher program was tucked into last summer’s huge, federal “One Big Beautiful” tax and reconciliation bill. By donating to a scholarship granting organization (SGO) parents can receive a dollar-for-dollar federal tax credit to help pay up to $1,700 for tuition at a private school of their choice. Governors can decide whether their state will opt to participate in the program, a choice already made in 31 mostly GOP-led states.
Recently, however, the Trump administration has been pushing to lure Democratic-led states to opt into the program. Last Thursday, Education Week‘s Matthew Stone, Evie Blad, and Mark Lieberman reported that the U.S. Department of the Treasury confirmed that public schools and public school support organizations can also qualify for the federal vouchers with particular types of programming: “The law specifically lists tutoring, before-and after-school programs, uniforms, books, technology, and services for students with disabilities as school-connected expenses the scholarships can cover. The Treasury Department said this week that it plans to issue additional guidance on allowable expenses later this year.”
Luring Democratic States to Opt-In The reporters describe Marguerite Roza, director of the Edunomics Lab at Georgetown University and a dogged and ardent promoter of the privatization of public schools, describing why she thinks Democratic governors should be interested in the federal vouchers, and how the federal vouchers could be adapted to support public education support programming: “One day, Roza said, the annual student bake sale fundraiser could be replaced with a drive to encourage people to sign up to send funds to an SGO that supports their public school, and employers could let workers easily direct funds from their paycheck withholdings to SGOs supporting local public schools… Public school districts could charge for ‘add-ons,’ paid for by scholarships (the tax credit vouchers)… Roza envisions three possible scenarios. The first is relatively financially modest: private or home-schooled students could use the scholarships to pay public schools for ‘add-ons,’ like participation on sports teams or ala carte courses. In a second scenario, public school students would use the scholarships for programs like after-school or summer enrichment. In the third, most ambitious option, districts would bundle a set of ‘enhanced services’ covered by the scholarships, like expanded electives, mental health supports, and out-of-school learning opportunities. Districts would then work with families and a supporting SGO to sign up every eligible student for a scholarship that covers those services.”
Education Week‘s Stone, Blad and Lieberman quote critics who worry about the dangers: “(T)he notion that public schools can benefit from the tax-credit scholarship program is a Trojan horse meant to make opting in palatable for reluctant governors, private school choice opponents argue. Private schools will see the most benefit, and decreased federal tax coffers will ultimately harm public schools, these opponents argue.” The reporters quote Melinda Person, president of the New York State United Teachers: “The question isn’t just about this year’s dollars and what we can get for public school kids this year. It’s about whether we’re helping to entrench a policy that we believe is ultimately going to weaken public education.”
It is likely that if states begin expecting federal tax credit vouchers to be used for public school programming, this federal program will complicate the politics around funding public schools. The final rules are expected to be released in September, and it is not yet clear whether there will be limits on what public school support programs will be covered. Will state legislators expect public school groups to start applying for federal tax credit vouchers to pay for programs their public schools already provide? Will parents eventually be expected to make make additional tuition tax credit donations for educational enrichment programs on top of the state income taxes and the local property taxes they already pay? Will the availability of federal tax credit vouchers undermine support for urgently needed local property tax levies?
How much will the vouchers cost the federal government? Education Week‘s Stone, Blad, and Lieberman report that a federal estimate predicts that the federal tuition tax credit vouchers could reduce federal revenues by as much as $4.4 billion by 2034. The Cleveland Plain Dealer‘s Sabrina Eaton discovered that’s probably a gross underestimate: “There is no federal cap on how many people can claim the credit, making its total cost open-ended. The Joint Committee on Taxation has scored the program at $25.9 billion over ten years, but the Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy has estimated the real annual cost could reach $51 billion or more if a significant share of eligible taxpayers participate.”
The Education Law Center’s Public Funds Public Schools Campaign debunks six claims made by the Trump administration in its effort to promote the federal tuition tax credit vouchers across the states.
- False Claim #1 “Vouchers expand educational access and opportunities for students.” Instead, many “students who take a voucher to attend a private school—particularly LGBTQ+ students, students of various religious faiths, and other vulnerable populations—risk losing civil rights protections that they are guaranteed in public schools.”
- False Claim #2 “Vouchers do not take money from public schools… Public schools receive funding largely based on the number of students they enroll. When students take vouchers and exit their local districts to attend private school, public school funding decreases but fixed costs remain, leaving (the) students in those (public) schools with fewer resources…. The federal voucher program will also significantly decrease federal revenue…. Federal funding streams such as Title I… and IDEA… provide critical support to students…. Diminishing the federal treasury imperils these and… other programs.
- False Claim #3 “Vouchers improve student outcomes… High-quality, large-scale studies demonstrate that vouchers have significant negative impacts on academic outcomes.”
- False Claim #4 “Vouchers do not burden taxpayers… The one-to-one tax credit for contributions to SGOs means that tax dollars owed to the federal government are re-routed to the voucher program. The loss of billions of dollars in tax revenue by the federal government will mean that taxpayers will feel the effect either as cuts to federal programs and services that no longer have funding, or as increased federal taxes to cover this budget hole.”
- False Claim #5 Vouchers provide families with affordable education options. Vouchers frequently do not cover the full cost of private school tuition. And they are usually insufficient to cover other essentials that are provided for free in public schools….”
- False Claim #6 The federal voucher program enjoys public popularity. Vouchers are historically unpopular, and voters have rejected voucher programs every single time the choice has been put to them at the ballot box.”
Public Funds Public Schools concludes: “The establishment of a federal school voucher program is part of a broader assault on public education, one of the most important common goods underpinning American democracy. But federal vouchers cannot be forced on states that don’t opt in.”
Here is a striking early example of one organization’s plan to use the federal vouchers to grow a network of Christian schools. Ohio has opted in to the federal tuition tax credit vouchers, and Ohio’s Center for Christian Virtue has already announced an adoption of the federal tuition tax credits that is particularly troubling for those of us who worry about the John Roberts Supreme Court’s abandonment of the protection of the separation of church and state. In late April, The Center for Christian Virtue announced that it has already established a Scholarship Granting Organization (SGO) to use federal tuition tax credit vouchers for students participating in the national expansion of its Christian Education Network:
“The Christian Education Network (CEN), founded by the Center for Christian Virtue (CCV), has launched a federal Scholarship Granting Organization… positioning Ohio as the hub of a growing nationwide effort to expand access to Christian education… This is a defining moment for Christian education in America,’ said Aaron Baer, Founder of CEN and President of CCV. ‘For the first time, families can take money they already owe to the federal government and redirect it into scholarships that fund a Christ-centered education… Under the federal framework, donors from any state can contribute, but only states that opt in will be eligible to receive scholarship funds…The new Federal School Choice Tax Credit presents the greatest evangelism opportunity in our lifetime.”
There is already pushback in Congress against the federal tax credit vouchers. Some members of Congress are deeply concerned about the future implications the federal school voucher program. In April, Peter Greene reported: “Senators Mark Kelly (D-AZ) and Mazie Hirono (D-HI) and an additional 28 senators have introduced the Keep Public Funds in Public Schools Act. The act would strike IRS Code Section 25, the portion of the IRS code that was inserted to create the federal school voucher program.” On Thursday, June 11, The Plain Dealer‘s Eaton reported that Gwen Moore (D-WI) introduced a companion bill, Keep Public Dollars in Public Schools Act, in the U.S. House of Representatives. A teacher in my own school district and president of the Cleveland Heights Teachers’ Union, Karen Rego traveled to Washington, DC to participate in the press conference announcing Moore’s bill.
Moore represents Wisconsin, and Rego is a public school educator in Ohio—the two states which have the longest experience with statewide private school voucher programs. Both programs began in the 1990s as small experiments to serve poor children; today both have expanded state-wide and ballooned in cost. Now, like all the other statewide voucher programs, Wisconsin and Ohio vouchers serve primarily wealthy students. The federal tuition tax credit vouchers Kelly’s and Moore’s bills oppose are also designed to direct federal funds to wealthy families. Education Week‘s Stone, Blad and Lieberman remind readers: “The federal law doesn’t specify the size of the scholarships, and most students will be eligible—anyone from families earning up to 300% of their area’s median income, which is $510,000 in Westchester County, N.Y., on the high end and about $114,000 in Wolfe County KY., on the low end.”