Commentary and Opinion

Commentary and opinion

Toward educational freedom in the UK

Matthew Ladner February 17, 2020

Matthew Ladner

Boris Johnson returned to Downing Street with a large majority after Conservatives swept Labour aside in its biggest majority at Westminster since Margaret Thatcher’s 1987 election victory.

Lindsey Burke, director of the Center for Education Policy at the Heritage Foundation, Nile Gardiner, who directs the Foundation’s Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, and your humble author teamed up recently to produce a report calling for a next generation assisted places program in the United Kingdom.

redefinED readers may recall my December 2019 post explaining that the British Labour Party campaigned during the General Election on a platform that included a proposal for the state to close private schools and seize their assets. Supporters of this proposal justified the illiberal position based on the notion that private schools are excessively exclusive.

Private schools in Britain did in fact become more exclusive than they otherwise would have been after a Labour government eliminated in 1997 a program known as the Assisted Places Scheme, which helped low-income students attend private schools. Labour suffered one of the greatest electoral disasters in modern British history, creating the opportunity for the Conservative government to address the issue of private school exclusivity in a constructive fashion:

Any future choice program should include and advantage the poor but must have broader community support in order to survive. In order to achieve the goal of Assisted Places – bringing economic diversity to British private schools – such choice options must be made widely available to all families, broadening community participation and support.

A subtle but profound shift could accomplish these goals and more. The main focus for the United Kingdom should be on funding students. The technology now exists to allow families to control their education funding to allow them to choose between a variety of school and non-school educational experiences. Rather than simply funding schools, Britain should be funding educations.

The death of the Assisted Places Scheme instructs current reformers to think in bolder strokes. Britain’s hyper-majoritarian political system, once described as “an elected dictatorship” means that communities of interest must be broad and strong in order to last. A well-constructed education savings account program can not only increase the economic diversity of private schools, but also can open a universe of non-school service providers such as therapists and tutors.

One of the major political parties went on record in full totalitarian mode regarding private schools. British private schools should not only support public policies to reduce exclusivity, but also should develop a wider coalition in civil society to meet the threat to their liberty and continued existence.

February 17, 2020 0 comment

2020 Presidential Election Blog Guest Commentary and Opinion Education and Public Policy Education Choice Education Equity Education Politics Featured Jack Coons School Choice Vouchers

The state of the (teachers) union

John E. Coons February 14, 2020

John E. Coons

Somebody in the White House has been thinking. President Trump’s recent State of the Union address, while wanting perhaps in style, included a truly clever turn of the screw.

Trump stole an issue only Cory Booker among the Democrats dared to touch – school choice for low income families. Booker was ready to face the teachers union; the other candidates for the Democratic nomination were not, and now really cannot.

Trump now owns the issue, and it connects him to those individuals who are sick of having their kids conscripted for a school the child and family despise. Those persons had found the president wanting in this area, but he now will be a hero to thousands who have been crying for so long for an end to compulsion.

The details of any specific proposal will, of course, be crucial to its actual success. I trust this proposal will not be the sort of small and uniform voucher for rich and poor alike, the sort one associates with the late Milton Friedman. The rich do not need the help, and at most should qualify for a token subsidy. The need is centered on low and lower-middle income families who are simply stuck.

Could the federal government by itself afford to provide the necessary dollars for an authentic and sufficient subsidy for all the poor to have their choice of school? Of course not. But, properly designed, it could intensify popular awareness of the potential of reform at the state level.

One great stumbling block for school choice subsidies has been the 19^th century adoption by most states of so-called Blaine amendments to their constitutions. These raised legal barriers to all financial aid to religious institutions. Such laws greatly limit the states’ ability to aid the parents’ choice of religious schools which make up most of the private sector. Happily, the Supreme Court has before it litigation which could well eliminate the problem by holding these 19^th century relics of prejudice unconstitutional.

What will be the response of Democratic candidates to the dilemma Trump has posed for them? If they continue their hostility to forms of aid that allow the poor parent to choose, they will maintain the support of the teachers union but risk that of those low-income fathers and mothers who have enthusiastically stood for subsidies spendable in private school.

Trump now has in hand the sort of weapon he obviously prizes and perhaps should. He has his opponents clearly in his sights as hypocrites, the kind of slam they have so frequently given him. The Dems have made their careers as heroes of the poor. For whom will they be heroes now?

February 14, 2020 4 comments

Commentary and Opinion Education and Public Policy Education Choice Education Spending Featured School Choice

Escape from New York to Florida for more efficient education spending

Matthew Ladner February 13, 2020

Matthew Ladner

The New York Post recently delivered a rather devastating comparison of New York, California, Florida and Texas on education spending. Since this is a Florida-based education blog and many New Yorkers move to Florida annually, let’s focus on the Sunshine and Empire states.

If you are a New Yorker, what can you say in response to this news other than “Ouch!” Despite spending well over twice as much per pupil, Florida has higher NAEP scores in three out of four of the regularly given NAEP exams. Alas, New Yorkers, the outlook is even worse once you look at trends, specifically eighth-grade reading scores by race/ethnicity, as illustrated in this chart.

In 1998, white students in New York were almost a grade level ahead of white students in Florida. Based on the last two NAEP exams, however, Florida held a slight lead. Hispanic students in the two states were tied in 1998, but in 2019, Hispanic students in New York were about a grade level behind their peers in Florida.

The same trends, although not represented in this chart, are evident for black and Asian students. Black students in Florida closed the gap with their New York peers after being a grade level behind in 1998. Asian students in Florida basically were tied with their peers in New York in 1998, but took a significant lead in 2019.

Perhaps you are a New Yorker and you consider teaching students how to read as an important part of K-12 education. You may be feeling a little crushed by the fact that other states are getting that job done better and more efficiently. Perhaps you are among those who would like a wide variety of public and private school options as featured in Step Up For Students’ annual Education Landscape document to help you find the right fit for your child. Our founders wisely created a system of federalism that allows citizens to match their policy and cultural preferences. Perhaps you should consider moving to Florida.

While the large and probably growing number of New Yorkers who want to become Floridians is obvious, the more subtle point from what I gather is that there is a small but vocal number of Floridians who would prefer the New York policy mix. If, for instance, you imagine that states are in a contest to spend the most per pupil and you aren’t overly concerned with results, then New York would be a destination state for you. This seems odd to me, but to each their own.

Given the huge number of moving trucks leaving New York for Florida, it would appear it’s relatively inexpensive to rent one to haul belongings from Florida to New York. After all, they’ve got to get the trucks back to New York for the next escapee, err, person wanting to move to Florida. The marginal cost of putting your stuff in the truck will be low. Once you arrive in New York, you can immediately begin to enjoy the benefits of high-spending and academic stagnation if you’re into that sort of thing.

February 13, 2020 0 comment

Blog Guest Commentary and Opinion Courts Education and Public Policy Education Choice Featured Florida Tax Credit Scholarship Parental Choice School Choice Tax Credit Scholarships

Education choice families should heed key message in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue

Leslie Hiner February 11, 2020

Leslie Hiner

Editor’s note: Leslie Hiner, vice president of legal affairs at EdChoice, connects this U.S. Supreme Court case with the recent controversy over the Florida Tax Credit Scholarship program and the interests of LGBTQ, lower-income and minority students, stressing that the position held by those who argue against financial support of religiously-affiliated schools is in direct conflict with precedent relevant in Espinoza.

Attention parents, grandparents, and anyone responsible for the K-12 education of a child under the age of 18.

You are about to be impacted in a big way by people you probably don’t know. These people do not live in your neighborhood. They know virtually nothing about you or your children. But their decision will either respect your freedom to direct the education of your child, or it will limit or jeopardize your child’s educational opportunities.

The nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court will deliver a decision sometime before the end of June in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue. The key issue in this case is whether parents who access school choice scholarships for their children may have the option to choose a religiously affiliated school for their children’s education.

In legal terms, the question before the Court is whether it is a violation of the Religion Clauses (Free Exercise, and Establishment) or Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution to invalidate “a generally available and religiously neutral student-aid program simply because the program affords students the choice of attending religious schools.”

How does this impact you?

The justices’ decision may create a huge new opportunity for expanded learning options for your child while protecting school choice options you may enjoy today.

In Montana, religiously-affiliated schools were banned from their school choice program. Parents who accessed scholarships from the program were denied the right to use those scholarships for their children at religiously-affiliated schools, and that’s why the parents sued the state. This is different from the famous Ohio voucher case, Zelman v. Simmons-Harris. In Zelman, the Court was asked whether it is constitutionally permissible for the state to include religiously-affiliated private schools in a voucher program. The Court said yes.

In Espinoza, the Court is asked whether it’s constitutional for the state to deny parents a free choice of schools, by excluding religiously-affiliated schools from a school choice program.

Espinoza could apply to you in two ways. If you live in a state with a Blaine Amendment that has no education choice, a favorable decision in Espinoza could energize legislators to enact school choice programs. If you live in a state with a Blaine Amendment but nonetheless have vouchers or similar programs, a favorable U.S. Supreme Court decision could remove all doubt as to the constitutionality of those programs and energize legislators to expand existing educational opportunities. Blaine amendments cast a heavy shadow over legislator confidence regarding constitutionality; if lifted, legislators will find a much clearer path toward expansive educational choice.

Religious freedom, guaranteed to each of us under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, plays an important role in education. A majority 66.4 percent of private schools are religiously affiliated, and 78 percent of private school students attend religiously-affiliated schools. Also, until the late 20^th century, public schools operated like Protestant schools where children prayed and recited verses from the King James Bible.

I stand as a witness to this history, remembering the day it was my turn, in the sixth grade at my public school (not in the Bible Belt), to choose and deliver the scripture reading of the day. The absence of faith (or hostility toward religion) in today’s public schools has heightened parent interest in the virtues and offerings of religiously-affiliated schools, perhaps in part because today’s grandparents and some parents remember when faith in God – expressed casually in public schools – was as normal as saying the Pledge of Allegiance.

In Florida, religiously-affiliated schools that are part of the state’s tax credit scholarship program are under attack by some individuals who allege the schools’ religious beliefs are discriminatory and therefor, the schools should not be supported. This position is in direct conflict with U.S. Supreme Court precedent, which is relevant in Espinoza. When religiously-affiliated schools participate in student-aid programs, the state’s position regarding those schools must be neutral; discriminatory judgment regarding religious beliefs would violate the right to freely exercise those beliefs.

Thinly veiled attempts to compel scholarship groups or the state to violate neutrality toward religiously-affiliated schools is ill-considered.

During Espinoza oral arguments, Supreme Court justices were reminded that parents, not scholarship groups or the state, decide which school is the right fit for their children. Florida donors targeting religiously-affiliated schools should also be reminded that parents choose these schools; sometimes parents’ religious beliefs align with the schools, and sometimes parents choose a school for reasons that have nothing to do with religion. When corporate donors oppose the religious beliefs of those schools, they are punishing parents for choosing those schools, regardless the reason. Corporate donors have no requirement to fund scholarships, but when they stop funding scholarships to compel discrimination against those who hold certain religious beliefs, that’s wrong – and offensive to the First Amendment of the Constitution.

“Generally available and religiously neutral student-aid programs” fund parents on behalf of their children; the public benefit of these programs is directed to students through their parents. “Student-aid” programs do not fund schools. This principle has been clear since the Court’s 2002 Zelman decision. As Dick Komer, the Institute for Justice attorney representing parents in Espinoza, stated to the U.S. Supreme Court during oral arguments, “Zelman has already answered the question about who this program is aiding. It’s not aiding the schools. It is aiding the parents.”

No person has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to force states to directly fund private schools like they directly fund public schools. Nonetheless, the Court chose to take the funding question to another level during Espinoza oral arguments.

Justice Breyer began the discussion with probing questions on whether a win for the parents in this case would also mean states would be forced to fund private schools directly along with funding public schools. Would a favorable decision mean states would violate the Constitution if they failed to directly fund both public and private schools?

An important, and unexpected, lesson emerged from this line of questioning.

Montana’s school choice program applies universally to all children in that state. And Justice Breyer’s questions rested solely on the principle that education funding applies to all children. He drew no distinction between education funding for children whose parents have higher income or lower income, or children who attend “A” rated or “F” rated schools, as is the case with many school choice programs.

As I listened to the debate, it struck me that a discussion on school choice funding that presumed funding would apply universally to all children was unusual. And it was refreshing.

Advocates of educational freedom often disagree about whether it is possible, or even desirable, for a state to provide scholarship programs for all children, regardless of income or circumstances. Yet, Supreme Court decisions on the constitutionality of educational choice apply to all children, not some children. This is a good precedent that all education reformers should follow.

The explosion of education alternatives illustrated in Step Up For Students’ Education Landscape document proves options are continuing to grow, with micro-schools being the latest alternative presenting real learning opportunities for children. As we continue to embrace innovative ways to educate the next generation of leaders, we should be mindful that all children have a right to learn.

If you notice that the sparkle of youth and joy of learning – that twinkle in your child’s eyes – has disappeared, Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and their peers may be the last people you’ll think about when wondering if you’ll be able to access an education for your child that will rekindle that joy of learning. However, now is the time to pay attention to the Supreme Court, and to learn a powerful lesson about providing educational benefits to all children.

For more rederfinED posts about Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, click here and here.

February 11, 2020 0 comment

Commentary and Opinion Education Choice Education Equity Featured Florida Tax Credit Scholarship School Choice

Students suffering from anxiety, bullying and discrimination need options

Matthew Ladner February 10, 2020

Matthew Ladner

Recently, the hashtag #ilovepublicschools trended on Twitter, but perhaps not in the way intended.

My intent in sharing a sample of what happened when public school students and parents began weighing in is not to bash public schools. I am a public school graduate, my mother worked in the public school system, and all three of the Ladner children have attended public schools. Many people do, in fact, love their public schools, and you can see evidence of that if you visit the hashtag.

But you also will hear from people who are miserable in their public schools.

Several of the #ilovepublicschools participants wrote about being bullied because of their sexual preference or disability status.

Again, I do not present these examples as a gratuitous attack on public schools, but rather to make the point that a great many families desperately need new schooling situations.

A scroll through #ilovepublicschools makes it clear just how profoundly misguided the current media campaign in Florida is to persuade companies not to make donations to scholarship programs. Students suffering from bullying, anxiety and depression often desperately need a new school. LGBTQ students are disproportionately the victims of such bullying. Tax credit scholarships are given to students in an entirely neutral fashion, and LGBTQ students are now using tax credit scholarships to attend schools that work for them.

Students like Elijah Robinson, for instance, who was featured on redefinED in October.

A successful campaign to dissuade companies from donating to the Florida Tax Credit Scholarship program will defund the scholarships of thousands of desperate students, students in situations like Elijah’s, and indeed, Elijah himself. If anyone can tell me Elijah Robinson should have been denied the opportunity to attend The Foundation Academy after having been relentlessly bullied at his previous school, the comment section awaits your explanation.

I fear there are people in our society so filled with hate for education choice programs that they would look Elijah Robinson in the eye and tell him, “You can no longer attend The Foundation Academy because of the decisions of unrelated third parties. Go back to the school whose students and staff drove you to the brink of suicide.”

I sincerely hope, dear reader, that you are not one of those people. If you are, I hope that God will shine a light into your soul that will allow you to rediscover your humanity.

February 10, 2020 12 comments

Commentary and Opinion Education Choice Featured Florida Tax Credit Scholarship Private Schools School Choice Student Voices

‘A school choice scholarship saved my life’

redefinED staff February 5, 2020

redefinED staff

toldEditor’s note: Among the scores of supporters who gathered at the Capitol Rotunda Tuesday to show support for the Florida Tax Credit Scholarship program was Elijah Robinson, a Jacksonville teen who told attendees the program saved his life. As noted in an October 2019 redefinED article about Elijah, his story would be compelling at any time; it’s especially poignant now, as criticism of the scholarship program and religious schools with policies adhering to their faith continues to mount. Here are Elijah’s remarks as prepared for the event.

My name is Elijah Robinson, and I am a senior at The Foundation Academy in Jacksonville.

I was bullied in my public school because of my sexual identity. And had it not been for a school choice scholarship, I would not be here today. A school choice scholarship saved my life.

The bullying started in ninth grade and continued through most of tenth. Every day, I would get called names. Almost every day, other students would try to block me from the locker room. When I told my teachers, they told me to just ignore it. I became very depressed. My grades went from A’s and B’s to F’s. Eventually, I attempted to harm myself.

When I got out of the hospital, my Mom put me in The Foundation Academy using a Florida Tax Credit Scholarship. The school is wonderful. There’s no bullying. Everyone is accepting. My grades are good again. I’m going to graduate this year and pursue my dream of becoming a nurse.

I know my scholarship would not have been possible had it not been for companies that donated money. I don’t know which companies they are. But I know there are many of them. And I want to thank them. Without them, and my Mom, I would not be in a school that I love, and that is good for me. Without them, and my Mom, I would not be thinking of my future, and all the possibilities in front of me.

I know what is being debated right now is really complicated. My hope is that everybody take the time to carefully think all of this through. Please don’t do anything that could result in fewer scholarships. Because if that happens, students like me will be hurt, not helped.

Thank you.

To read more about Elijah and to hear his story in his own words, click here.

February 5, 2020 0 comment

Blog Guest Commentary and Opinion Courts Education Choice Education Equity Faith-based Education Featured Jack Coons Parental Choice School Choice

The child’s right to the parent’s choice

John E. Coons February 4, 2020

John E. Coons

Founders of the Oregon order Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary, about 1859

Nearly a century ago, in 1925, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Pierce v. Society of Sisters. The state of Oregon had, by popular initiative, decided every child of school age would attend a “public” school to satisfy minimum educational requirements. Every family was to deliver its child to the state; St. Theresa and Johnson’s Private Academy could no longer satisfy the law of compulsory education.

Hence, the Sisters sued for their professional lives and the litigation rose to the federal judicial summit.

The Court in the 1920s was at the zenith of free market protectionism. Its holding in Pierce was technically a victory for those schools that were the initial plaintiffs, but the Court took the opportunity to broaden its message, stressing:

“[Oregon’s] act of 1922 unreasonably interferes with the liberty of parents and guardians … the child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.”

The state, of course, remained secure in its capacity to impose a set of reasonable rules binding upon the private sector of schooling. But the parents remained master of the rest of the content of the child’s formal education; their sovereignty remains solid to this day, including the authority to choose the child’s formal educator. What seems worth adding to our focus is the court’s brief and ambiguous reference to the child’s own separate interest in receiving the parents’ choice: “The child is not the mere creature of the state.”

Children, of course, enjoy a cluster of legal rights, all of them protected both by and against their parent. The state has an obligation to interfere in case of serious abuse by parents. But the state itself also can become the abuser. A parent’s power to decide is of great value to the child, one that is protected by law as a personal right.

But compare, then, the status of the child of the poor with that of the well-off created by our systems of compulsory education. Given the protection of Pierce, the parent of the middle class on up is recognized both in law and fact as the one who nurtures and directs his destiny throughout childhood – that is, unless the parent is systematically and unnecessarily shorn of this authority and duty by the state itself. And so it is with the child of the poor in respect to school.

That boy or girl whose life experience is otherwise determined by adults who know and love him or her sadly has 13 years of early life determined by no human decision at all. “You live here; the law says that you go to school there.” The child is delivered to an institution that has never heard her name, to strangers who will have no reason to remember her, or her parent.

Worse, perhaps, little Jim or Susie is made witness to the near irrelevance of mother and father in the child’s own life story. The best they can do for the child is to play the sympathetic listener to sad stories about which they can do nothing. They “… have the right coupled with the high duty,” but they have been disabled by their own government.

Enter the Supreme Court – maybe.

The child’s own distinctive and separate constitutional right to the parents’ choice could well be considered by the justices as a core element of decision in the Montana school choice case, the latest chapter in the battle over the use of public funding for religious schools. Its emergence here as a clear element of our constitutional law would be a recognition of dignity for the low-income parent and a workable application of the 14^th Amendment.

February 4, 2020 0 comment

Commentary and Opinion Education Choice Featured Parental Choice School Choice

Florida’s mélange of K-12 education options expands opportunities for students, educators

Matthew Ladner February 3, 2020

Matthew Ladner

Step Up For Students’ annual Changing Landscapes document reveals 48.2 percent of PreK-12 students attend a school of choice, up from 47.5 percent last year.

“Without change something sleeps inside us, and seldom awakens. The sleeper must awaken.” Leto Atreides, Frank Herbert’s Dune

Studying the Florida Education Landscape document, released last week by Step Up For Students, has become one of my favorite January rituals along with playoff football and enjoying Arizona’s sunny, mild weather.

Serving just under a combined 150,000 students, Florida’s private choice programs would have ranked at approximately the sixth largest in the state by enrollment. The wide world of Florida K-12 choice, however, is much larger than just private choice programs. School districts offer an array of additional programs, Florida’s charter school sector continues to grow, and homeschooling is becoming more popular.

Open enrollment is an option that clearly has room to grow. The 273,377 figure cited in the document looks like – and is – a large number. But as the Reason Foundation’s Vittorio Nastasi notes, only 5,693 of these students transferred between districts, which means the vast majority of open enrollment is occurring within the same district rather than between districts.

This is due in part to Florida’s large system of county school districts. We would not expect to see many students travelling long distances from the center of one country to the periphery of another to attend school.

To put this into perspective, Arizona’s Scottsdale Unified School District takes in 4,000 open enrollment students in a district of approximately 22,000 students. Given that Florida’s public-school enrollment is nearing 3 million, 5,693 between-district transfers might seem like a good start – if it were occurring between Dade and Broward counties rather than statewide.

Bottom line: If too many of Florida’s school districts remain a sleeping giant of choice, other actors will step up to fill the gap. This is the tension in the system that’s needed to spur improvement and innovation and stave off stagnation. Every Florida student deserves the opportunity to attend a school that’s a good fit for his or her aspirations and needs. We have many miles to go before that will be the case.

February 3, 2020 0 comment