Consider that as we begin advocacy on the House and Senate bills for school choice here in Tennessee, the House bill (projected ~38-page omnibus) has yet to be released and the Senate bill provides nothing more than what can be construed as boilerplate language. Yet, both of these bills are scheduled to be heard in their respective committees during the week of February 26th.
We will speak to the broader concerns as to why we oppose school choice measures in general.
I. Education Savings Accounts by their very function and nature must be considered as entitlement programs, a government subsidy for a service rendered or product received. Those who would try to characterize this money as some sort of “tax credit” or a return of “your tax dollars” are severely mischaracterizing how the system actually works.
We pay taxes. Or rather, the government takes our taxes. Once that money finds its way into government coffers, it is no longer “your money.” By definition, you have no claim or control of those funds. That money is expended, in theory, for the public good and managed by our elected representatives in government. The money now belongs to the one with control over the funds. It’s government money.
If and when that money is ever “returned” to individuals, it is typically in the form of some entitlement program, a grant, a stimulus package, or other means that come bound with government regulations. Visualized more simply, it is money in and regulations out.
We cannot and do not support the idea that we will resolve our problems with education by creating a new entitlement program.
II. With shekels come shackles. The growing concern amongst many conservatives is that the move to bring tax dollars into the private education setting will indeed bring with it (even if in time) regulations that we do not see currently in the private sector.
An example from Florida, “[Last] year, powerful lobbyists and Florida Republicans introduced House Bill 1 to open up the floodgates of government funding to homeschoolers and private schools. The original draft of the bill would have made tax-funded “Family Empowerment Scholarships” available to basically all students in Florida, including homeschoolers and those attending private schools.
But, as always, there was a big catch: In exchange for government money, the students receiving it would be required to take government-mandated tests aligned with Common Core, with results reported to authorities. The families would also be required to meet each year with a “choice navigator” to determine the educational “needs” of their tax-funded child. The aid was to be distributed by a government-aligned “non-profit” organization that received grants from Florida’s leading LGBT extremist group even as it was seeking to impose its “woke” agenda on Christian schools.
Thanks to enormous pressure from the homeschooling community and other grassroots forces, some of the worst elements of the bill were removed, and the “choice navigator” meetings were made optional. But the danger remains. In fact, similar bills have proliferated in Republican legislatures nationwide. Virtually all of them impose new reporting, testing, and regulatory requirements on recipients of public funding.” (Alex Newman, The New American) READ ARTICLE
If we go down this path in Tennessee, we will face this risk every year the legislature is in session.
III. Cost. In short, this program will create a new $140,000,000 in Tennessee’s budget in order to move 2% of the current public school population into private schools for the 2024-2025 school year.
In subsequent years, the future growth of the program is dependent on funds made available in the budget while continuing to admit student applicants on an income-tiered basis and then first-come, first-served.
Considering that Tennessee already spends a combined 59% of its budget on education and public benefits, the move to add another line item to that budget can hardly be called fiscally conservative. In addition, the price tag for school choice will make the prospect of getting federal funding out of our education spending simply impossible. We can’t afford it.
Meanwhile, as this program creates a new cost to the state, we are still (and will be still) funding K-12 public education to the tune of $10 BILLION from state funds and cannot seem to address the systemic issues that are yielding less than desirable outcomes for many students.
Private schools work because they are privately funded. Government funding will break it.
IV. Government funding DOES NOT yield parental control. The talking points from the national advocacy groups promoting school choice are selling the idea that an ESA program with give parents a choice. And frankly, that sounds really good. What conservative would be against making sure that parents are able to direct the education of their children and legally have the option to choose?
But the fact is that parents have a choice today. Parents are absolutely free to send their children to (1) the public school system, (2) a private school, or (3) homeschool their children. Parents have those rights and those options today.
However, some parents may not be able to afford a private education. Some families are not structured in such a way that will afford them the opportunity to homeschool. In some cases, these burdens are financial and in other cases, it simply depends on a willingness to prioritize and possibly sacrifice for the best education we can provide our children. But these are individual decisions independent of government.
What we are talking about with school choice is using government funding to subsidize those private decisions, especially when economic constraints are in play. I implore you to recognize that this is NOT choice, but the express definition of an entitlement.
Protecting parental choice means protecting our homeschools and private schools which are currently working and providing superior education outcomes for the families making those choices today. Protecting choice means protecting private interests. And protecting private interests means keeping government funding out.
We agree with most Tennesseans who believe that our public education system is broken. And we are committed to finding solutions to fix the problems including getting woke agendas out of our schools and breaking the stronghold of the teachers’ union (NEA).
Funding private schools with government subsidies does not in any way fix those problems. It will, however, create new ones. We oppose this legislation.
We strongly oppose efforts to expand so-called “school choice” in Tennessee. Buyer beware.
Consider that as we begin advocacy on the House and Senate bills for school choice here in Tennessee, the House bill (projected ~38-page omnibus) has yet to be released and the Senate bill provides nothing more than what can be construed as boilerplate language. Yet, both of these bills are scheduled to be heard in their respective committees during the week of February 26th.
We will speak to the broader concerns as to why we oppose school choice measures in general.
I. Education Savings Accounts by their very function and nature must be considered as entitlement programs, a government subsidy for a service rendered or product received. Those who would try to characterize this money as some sort of “tax credit” or a return of “your tax dollars” are severely mischaracterizing how the system actually works.
We pay taxes. Or rather, the government takes our taxes. Once that money finds its way into government coffers, it is no longer “your money.” By definition, you have no claim or control of those funds. That money is expended, in theory, for the public good and managed by our elected representatives in government. The money now belongs to the one with control over the funds. It’s government money.
If and when that money is ever “returned” to individuals, it is typically in the form of some entitlement program, a grant, a stimulus package, or other means that come bound with government regulations. Visualized more simply, it is money in and regulations out.
We cannot and do not support the idea that we will resolve our problems with education by creating a new entitlement program.
II. With shekels come shackles. The growing concern amongst many conservatives is that the move to bring tax dollars into the private education setting will indeed bring with it (even if in time) regulations that we do not see currently in the private sector.
An example from Florida, “[Last] year, powerful lobbyists and Florida Republicans introduced House Bill 1 to open up the floodgates of government funding to homeschoolers and private schools. The original draft of the bill would have made tax-funded “Family Empowerment Scholarships” available to basically all students in Florida, including homeschoolers and those attending private schools.
But, as always, there was a big catch: In exchange for government money, the students receiving it would be required to take government-mandated tests aligned with Common Core, with results reported to authorities. The families would also be required to meet each year with a “choice navigator” to determine the educational “needs” of their tax-funded child. The aid was to be distributed by a government-aligned “non-profit” organization that received grants from Florida’s leading LGBT extremist group even as it was seeking to impose its “woke” agenda on Christian schools.
Thanks to enormous pressure from the homeschooling community and other grassroots forces, some of the worst elements of the bill were removed, and the “choice navigator” meetings were made optional. But the danger remains. In fact, similar bills have proliferated in Republican legislatures nationwide. Virtually all of them impose new reporting, testing, and regulatory requirements on recipients of public funding.” (Alex Newman, The New American) READ ARTICLE
If we go down this path in Tennessee, we will face this risk every year the legislature is in session.
III. Cost. In short, this program will create a new $140,000,000 in Tennessee’s budget in order to move 2% of the current public school population into private schools for the 2024-2025 school year.
In subsequent years, the future growth of the program is dependent on funds made available in the budget while continuing to admit student applicants on an income-tiered basis and then first-come, first-served.
Considering that Tennessee already spends a combined 59% of its budget on education and public benefits, the move to add another line item to that budget can hardly be called fiscally conservative. In addition, the price tag for school choice will make the prospect of getting federal funding out of our education spending simply impossible. We can’t afford it.
Meanwhile, as this program creates a new cost to the state, we are still (and will be still) funding K-12 public education to the tune of $10 BILLION from state funds and cannot seem to address the systemic issues that are yielding less than desirable outcomes for many students.
Private schools work because they are privately funded. Government funding will break it.
IV. Government funding DOES NOT yield parental control. The talking points from the national advocacy groups promoting school choice are selling the idea that an ESA program with give parents a choice. And frankly, that sounds really good. What conservative would be against making sure that parents are able to direct the education of their children and legally have the option to choose?
But the fact is that parents have a choice today. Parents are absolutely free to send their children to (1) the public school system, (2) a private school, or (3) homeschool their children. Parents have those rights and those options today.
However, some parents may not be able to afford a private education. Some families are not structured in such a way that will afford them the opportunity to homeschool. In some cases, these burdens are financial and in other cases, it simply depends on a willingness to prioritize and possibly sacrifice for the best education we can provide our children. But these are individual decisions independent of government.
What we are talking about with school choice is using government funding to subsidize those private decisions, especially when economic constraints are in play. I implore you to recognize that this is NOT choice, but the express definition of an entitlement.
Protecting parental choice means protecting our homeschools and private schools which are currently working and providing superior education outcomes for the families making those choices today. Protecting choice means protecting private interests. And protecting private interests means keeping government funding out.
We agree with most Tennesseans who believe that our public education system is broken. And we are committed to finding solutions to fix the problems including getting woke agendas out of our schools and breaking the stronghold of the teachers’ union (NEA).
Funding private schools with government subsidies does not in any way fix those problems. It will, however, create new ones. We oppose this legislation.
Conservatives in Missouri are in the same battle over school choice.
Corey DeAngelis is a Senior Fellow at Betsy DeVos’ American Federation for Children who is the key national driver on convincing the GOP to support school choice initiatives.
We’ve been vocal about the fact that this plan for “education freedom scholarships” is nothing more than an entitlement program akin to Universal Basic Income (touted by former Democratic Presidential Candidate, Andrew Yang). And we have been mocked by some for making this suggestion.
But, what do you say when the self-professed school choice evangelist himself says the words out loud, Universal Basic Education Income?
What argument does one make when you find out that school choice has been a promoted initiative by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation as a measure to push equity throughout education?
What about when you read the 81-page paper, Regulating public-private partnerships, governing non-state schools: an equity perspective, released by UNESCO in 2021.
If you support Corey DeAngelis’ and Governor Bill Lee’s vision for school choice, are you inspired by the fact that Bill Gates and the UN share the same vision?
We are not going to mince words. We are staunchly opposed to any legislation that will continue to expand a program that utilizes education scholarships, vouchers, or any kind of tax subsidy for private education in the state of Tennessee. It is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Like this article?
Gary Humble
Gary Humble