Welcome
During the House Education Committee meeting yesterday, opponents of a proposed means-tested voucher bill, House Bill 944: Opportunity Scholarship Act, opted for the "everything but the kitchen sink" approach to argumentation. Their incoherent, at times sidesplitting, barrage of spurious arguments actually reinvigorates a bill that appeared to be in hibernation for the last month.
Bulletin Board
- Attend. A list of upcoming events sponsored by the John Locke Foundation can be found at the bottom of this newsletter, as well as here. We look forward to seeing you!
- Donate. If you find this newsletter mildly informative or entertaining, please consider making a tax-deductible contribution to the John Locke Foundation. The John Locke Foundation is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization that does not accept nor seek government funding. It relies solely on generous support from individuals, corporations, small businesses, and foundations.
- Share. The North Carolina History Project seeks contributors to the North Carolina History Project Encyclopedia. Please contact Dr. Troy Kickler for additional information.
- Discuss. I would like to invite all readers to submit brief announcements, personal insights, anecdotes, concerns, and observations about the state of education in North Carolina. I will publish selected submissions in future editions of the newsletter. Requests for anonymity will be honored. For additional information or to send a submission, email Terry at [email protected].
- Revisit. We have archived all research newsletters on our website. Access the archive here.
CommenTerry
For a political movement that desires to coordinate strategy down to the slightest detail (see Blueprint NC), the political left in North Carolina continues to bumble their opposition to one of the more controversial pieces of education legislation proposed this session, House Bill 944: Opportunity Scholarship Act.
Their failure to deliver a coherent message was on display during two consecutive meetings of the House Education Committee, as naysaying speakers and legislators alike couldn’t decide what was worst about the bill.
- Some speakers argued that too few students would benefit from the voucher. If so, how does that jibe with the idea that the voucher bill will destroy public schools? Moreover, if few students benefit, then the financial impact on traditional public schools (if any) will be negligible. Of course, opponents avoid the argument that too many students would choose vouchers because that suggests that there is a genuine demand for educational options.
- Other opponents of the voucher bill worried that low income families would not have the resources to make up the difference between the voucher amount and private school tuition. Evidence from the Children’s Scholarship Fund — Charlotte suggests that is not the case. Regardless, the funding gap argument supports increasing the voucher amount. I am sure the bill sponsors will listen to an amendment that addresses the funding gap by increasing the voucher to an amount over the existing $4,200 level.
- A handful of speakers pointed out that some students would choose to attend religious schools and their choice violates the "separation of church and state." In Zelman vs. Simmons-Harris, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that vouchers, even when parents choose to use them at religious institutions, are constitutional. And remember that for decades the state government has awarded tuition grants and scholarships to students who attend sectarian colleges and universities. Families of young children also receive vouchers to attend church-sponsored preschool and childcare programs.
- There appeared to be others who are concerned that some kids, namely low income urban children, would benefit at the expense of others. This is true in a static world where everything remains the same always. But, and this may surprise some — we live in a world where things change. Initially, areas with plentiful private schools will receive the bulk of the scholarships. But underrepresented communities will recognize an increasing demand for private school seats from parents seeking alternatives to the public school system. If the demand is robust, the schools will follow, particularly in rural communities that currently have a limited supply of private schools.
- Advocacy groups questioned the fact that private schools employ unlicensed teachers and administrators. In general, that is correct. Private schools recognize that state certification is a lousy indicator of teacher quality. Most private schools seek individuals with solid subject area knowledge and/or practical experience, knowing that the skills required to become an effective teacher are best learned on the job.
- Private schools lack accountability, right? First, it is amusing to hear lefties speak so passionately about accountability. Second, private schools are accountable to parents. No public school accountability system can rival the ability of parents to pull their children (and money) out of a school that is not meeting their needs.
- A number of opponents suggested that vouchers undermine our republic — a republic that existed for 100 years before many states implemented formal, comprehensive, and government-funded school systems and approximately 120 years before a majority of states approved compulsory attendance laws.
The above paragraphs represent a sample of the varied arguments put forward by opponents of House Bill 944. There are a number of fringe arguments that I failed to mention, such as the prospect of parents using voucher money for online or Muslim schools. My apologies. Trying to document the arguments of voucher opponents is a lot like watching Pain and Gain, while Metallica plays in the background and a Cinnamon Sugar Pop Tart is burning in the toaster oven.
Facts and Stats
For the full text of House Bill 944: Opportunity Scholarship Act, visit the NC General Assembly website. To learn more about vouchers, read School Vouchers: From Friedman to the Finish Line.
Education Acronym of the Week
OSA — Opportunity Scholarship Act
Quote of the Week
"The assertion was raised that this proposal is no different than what was done with vouchers for Smart Start, More at Four or the successor program, NCPreK. I disagree. Those vouchers provide support for low income children to attend early childhood programs. North Carolina offers no public school equivalent for early childhood programs from which the voucher program draws away students."
– Carol Vandenbergh, Executive Director, Professional Educators of North Carolina
Click here for the Education Update archive.
