In 2018, Arizona voters overwhelmingly rejected school vouchers. On the ballot that year was a measure that would have allowed all parents — even the wealthiest ones — to receive taxpayer money to send their kids to private, typically religious schools.
Arizonans voted no, and it wasn’t close. Even in a right-leaning state, with powerful Republican leaders supporting the initiative, the vote against it was 65% to 35%.
This year, voters in Colorado, Nebraska, and Kentucky rejected vouchers. In Kentucky, the margin was 2-1 against vouchers – and all 120 counties in Kentucky opposed a ballot initiative that would have allowed vouchers.
While the results of last week’s election indicate a closely divided nation on many issues, support for public schools is a consistent winner. And, when asked – in blue states and red states and in rural and urban areas – voters reject school vouchers.
Within hours of the recent election’s conclusion in Tennessee, Gov. Bill Lee’s top legislative allies filed their top priority legislation for 2025: School Vouchers.
This despite vouchers being overwhelmingly rejected by voters in states like Kentucky, Colorado, and Nebraska.
Yes, while Kentucky voted about 2-1 for Donald Trump, they also voted 2-1 AGAINST a ballot initiative that would have allowed public funds to be spent on private schools by way of vouchers.
Vouchers were rejected in all 120 of Kentucky’s counties.
And still, Gov. Lee and his associates continue to push for a universal voucher scheme in our state.
“Once again, Tennessee Republicans are pushing an expansion of their failed private school voucher scheme. This isn’t about improving education; it’s about diverting public dollars away from underfunded public schools to private institutions that are unaccountable to taxpayers and don’t serve every student. Vouchers are a scam — they aren’t working to improve student outcomes here in Tennessee, nor have they succeeded at this scale anywhere else in the country.”
Yes, vouchers themselves are budget-busters. But, this proposed amendment also includes a key provision that could create headaches for school districts, principals, and teachers.
THAT PARENTS HAVE THE RIGHT TO DIRECT THE EDUCATION OF THEIR CHILDREN
Those are the words causing great concern.
Because, what do they mean? Do words even mean anything?
Here are some of the ways this language might be interpreted:
Wouldn’t this amendment also allow parents to intrude into every classroom? If I have a constitutional right to direct my child’s education, does that not mean that I can tell my child’s science teacher to stop teaching evolution? Or start teaching evolution? Can I demand a different approach to teaching American history? How about prepositions? And how will a classroom teacher even function if every child in the classroom comes with a parent who has a constitutional right to direct their education?
A representative of the state’s Parent Teacher Association (PTA) says the law, if adopted, would amount to chaos.
And it wouldn’t just be limited to chaos in public schools. All parents would have the guaranteed, constitutionally-protected right to “direct” their child’s education – no matter the school setting.
It seems likely that if the law passed, one or several court cases would have to be heard to determine the exact meaning of “directing a child’s learning.”
If I have a right to choose a private school paid for by tax dollars but the private school doesn’t accept my kid, then what? Doesn’t the law say the “choice” is mine – and I’m “directing” the state to use its dollars to educate my child at the school I choose? Which means if the school doesn’t “choose” my kid, they are breaking the law? Infringing on my rights?
I’m not sure this law will pass, but if it does, Colorado will be in for – chaos.
A Kentucky student highlights problems created by school voucher schemes
As Kentucky voters consider a an amendment to the state’s Constitution that would allow the use of public funds to support private K-12 schools, one private school student is speaking out on why that’s a very bad idea.
One of the scariest things about Amendment 2 is that it basically serves as a blank check for vouchers to non-public schools with no clear place for the funding to come from other than public schools.
Tennessee policymakers should remember, too, that just as in Kentucky, the school voucher scheme is likely to funnel tax dollars from rural districts and send them to urban and suburban private schools.
Of course, that won’t stop Gov. Lee from trying again to pass a universal school voucher bill.
Colorado, Kentucky, and Nebraska all have voucher votes on the ballot.
Peter Greene reminds us:
These are three different approaches to the question of taxpayer-funded school vouchers, but they share the unusual feature of putting voucher programs to a public vote. All school voucher programs in the U. S. were passed into law by legislatures, sometimes over strong objections of the taxpayers. No taxpayer-funded school voucher program has ever survived a public vote.
It’s not clear the drafters understood the full implications of the proposed change.
The wording essentially makes school choice the right of every child in the state. It also explicitly gives parents the right to “direct their child’s education.”
As Peter Greene notes, this presents some interesting challenges:
Wouldn’t this language amount to a state takeover of all charter and private schools?
And that’s not all. Wouldn’t this amendment also allow parents to intrude into every classroom? If I have a constitutional right to direct my child’s education, does that not mean that I can tell my child’s science teacher to stop teaching evolution? Or start teaching evolution? Can I demand a different approach to teaching American history? How about prepositions? And how will a classroom teacher even function if every child in the classroom comes with a parent who has a constitutional right to direct their education?
It’s not clear there’s momentum for the proposed changes to pass. But, if they did, Colorado schools – both public and private – could be in for some unpleasant surprises.
No money shall be paid from public funds nor shall the credit of the State or any of its political subdivisions be used for the direct benefit of any religious or other private educational institution.
Yep. That’s it.
The surprise is not that the majority agreed with the plain language. Rather, it’s surprising that these word could be read in such a way as to allow state money to flow to anything other than public schools in South Carolina.
In a report on Florida’s experiment with full-on school privatization by way of charter schools and vouchers, Peter Greene notes that the endgame for those supporting “school choice” is getting the government completely out of the “education business.” While that may sound great in terms of “free market,” Greene highlights some pretty important implications:
Privatization is not just about privatizing the folks who get to provide education (or education-flavored products). It is about privatizing the responsibility for getting children an education.
Getting government out of education means ending the promise that every child in this country is entitled to a decent education. Regardless of zip code. Regardless of their parents’ ability to support them. Regardless of whatever challenges they bring to the process.
End that promise. Replace it with a free(ish) market. End the community responsibility for educating future citizens. Put the whole weight of that on their parents. End the oversight and accountability to the elected representatives of the taxpayers. Replace it with a “Well, the parents will sort that out. And if they don’t, that’s their own fault and their own problem.”
This sounds a lot like what Gov. Bill Lee and his legislative allies are attempting in Tennessee.
With some reports indicating that Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro is on the short list to become Vice President Kamala Harris’s running mate, a key problem is emerging for Shapiro: School vouchers.
Shapiro is often referred to as a moderate in his party, and it strikes me that a Democrat can earn the “moderate” label simply by selling out public schools and supporting privatization schemes like charter schools or vouchers.
It appears Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz is now on the shortlist as well. Walz is a staunch supporter of public schools and signed a law ensuring free school meals for all kids in Minnesota schools.
Warner is among a group of Republicans representing largely rural districts who oppose expanding vouchers – both because public schools are the cornerstone’s of their communities and because they see school vouchers as a transfer of money from rural taxpayers to suburban and urban private schools.
When it comes to vouchers, Warner told ProPublica:
“I’m for less government, but it’s government’s role to provide a good public education,” he said. “If you want to send your kid to private school, then you should pay for it.”
