ProPublica
November 9, 2024
Photo by Aaron Burden on Unsplash
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%.
Coming into this week’s election, Donald Trump and Republicans had hoped to reverse that sort of popular opposition to “school choice” with new voucher ballot measures in several states.
But despite Trump’s big win in the presidential race, vouchers were again soundly rejected by significant majorities of Americans. In Kentucky, a ballot initiative that would have allowed public money to go toward private schooling was defeated roughly 65% to 35% — the same margin as in Arizona in 2018 and the inverse of the margin by which Trump won Kentucky. In Nebraska, nearly all 93 counties voted to repeal an existing voucher program; even its reddest county, where 95% of voters supported Trump, said no to vouchers. And in Colorado, voters defeated an effort to add a “right to school choice” to the state constitution, language that might have allowed parents to send their kids to private schools on the public dime.
Expansions of school vouchers, despite backing from wealthy conservatives, have never won when put to voters. Instead, they lose by margins not often seen in such a polarized country.
Candidates of both parties would be wise “to make strong public education a big part of their political platforms, because vouchers just aren’t popular,” said Tim Royers, president of the Nebraska State Education Association, a teachers union. Royers pointed to an emerging coalition in his state and others, including both progressive Democrats and rural Republicans, that opposes these sweeping “school choice” efforts. (Small-town Trump voters oppose such measures because their local public school is often an important community institution, and also because there aren’t that many or any private schools around.)
Yet voucher efforts have been more successful when they aren’t put to a public vote. In recent years, nearly a dozen states have enacted or expanded major voucher or “education savings account” programs, which provide taxpayer money even to affluent families who were already able to afford private school.
That includes Arizona, where in 2022 the conservative Goldwater Institute teamed up with Republican Gov. Doug Ducey and the GOP majority in the Legislature to enact the very same “universal” education savings account initiative that had been so soundly repudiated by voters just a few years before.
Another way that Republican governors and interest groups have circumvented the popular will on this issue is by identifying anti-voucher members of their own party and supporting pro-voucher candidates who challenge those members in primary elections. This way, they can build legislative majorities to enact voucher laws no matter what conservative voters want.
In Iowa, several Republicans were standing in the way of a major new voucher program as of 2022. Gov. Kim Reynolds helped push them out of office — despite their being incumbents in her own party — for the purposes of securing a majority to pass the measure.
A similar dynamic has developed in Tennessee and in a dramatic way in Texas, the ultimate prize for voucher advocates. There, pro-voucher candidates for the state Legislature won enough seats this Tuesday to pass a voucher program during the legislative session that starts in January, Republican Gov. Greg Abbott has said.
The day after the election, Abbott, who has made vouchers his top legislative priority, framed the result as a resounding signal that Texans have now shown a “tidal wave of support” for pro-voucher lawmakers. But in reality, the issue was conspicuously missing from the campaigns of many of the new Republicans whom he helped win, amid polling numbers that showed Texans hold complicated views on school choice. (A University of Houston poll taken this summer found that two-thirds of Texans supported voucher legislation, but that an equal number also believe that vouchers funnel money away from “already struggling public schools.”)
In the half dozen competitive Texas legislative races targeted in this election by Abbott and the pro-voucher American Federation for Children, backed by former Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, Republican candidates did not make vouchers a central plank of their platforms. Most left the issue off of their campaign websites, instead listing stances like “Standing with Public Schools” and “Increased Funding for Local Schools.”
Corpus Christi-area Republican Denise Villalobos pledged on her website that if elected she would “fight for increased funding for our teachers and local schools”; she did not emphasize her pro-voucher views. At least one ad paid for by the American Federation for Children’s affiliated PAC attacked her opponent, Democrat Solomon Ortiz Jr., not for his opposition to vouchers but for what it claimed were his “progressive open-border policies that flood our communities with violent crime and fentanyl.” (Villalobos defeated Ortiz by 10 points.)
Matthew Wilson, a professor of political science at Southern Methodist University, said that this strategy reflects a belief among voucher advocates that compared to the border and culture wars, vouchers are not in fact a “slam-dunk winning issue.”
In the wake of Tuesday’s results in the presidential election, NBC News chief political analyst Chuck Todd said that Democrats had overlooked school choice as a policy that might be popular among working-class people, including Latinos, in places like Texas. But the concrete results of ballot initiatives around the nation show that it is in fact Trump, DeVos and other voucher proponents who are out of step with the American people on this particular issue.
They continue to advocate for vouchers, though, for multiple reasons: a sense that public schools are places where children develop liberal values, an ideological belief that the free market and private institutions can do things better and more efficiently than public ones, and a long-term goal of more religious education in this country.
And they know that popular sentiment can be and has been overridden by the efforts of powerful governors and moneyed interest groups, said Josh Cowen, a senior fellow at the Education Law Center who recently published a history of billionaire-led voucher efforts nationwide.
The Supreme Court could also aid the voucher movement in coming years, he said.
“They’re not going to stop,” Cowen said, “just because voters have rejected this.”
November 9, 2024
Photo by Aaron Burden on Unsplash
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%.
Coming into this week’s election, Donald Trump and Republicans had hoped to reverse that sort of popular opposition to “school choice” with new voucher ballot measures in several states.
But despite Trump’s big win in the presidential race, vouchers were again soundly rejected by significant majorities of Americans. In Kentucky, a ballot initiative that would have allowed public money to go toward private schooling was defeated roughly 65% to 35% — the same margin as in Arizona in 2018 and the inverse of the margin by which Trump won Kentucky. In Nebraska, nearly all 93 counties voted to repeal an existing voucher program; even its reddest county, where 95% of voters supported Trump, said no to vouchers. And in Colorado, voters defeated an effort to add a “right to school choice” to the state constitution, language that might have allowed parents to send their kids to private schools on the public dime.
Expansions of school vouchers, despite backing from wealthy conservatives, have never won when put to voters. Instead, they lose by margins not often seen in such a polarized country.
Candidates of both parties would be wise “to make strong public education a big part of their political platforms, because vouchers just aren’t popular,” said Tim Royers, president of the Nebraska State Education Association, a teachers union. Royers pointed to an emerging coalition in his state and others, including both progressive Democrats and rural Republicans, that opposes these sweeping “school choice” efforts. (Small-town Trump voters oppose such measures because their local public school is often an important community institution, and also because there aren’t that many or any private schools around.)
Yet voucher efforts have been more successful when they aren’t put to a public vote. In recent years, nearly a dozen states have enacted or expanded major voucher or “education savings account” programs, which provide taxpayer money even to affluent families who were already able to afford private school.
That includes Arizona, where in 2022 the conservative Goldwater Institute teamed up with Republican Gov. Doug Ducey and the GOP majority in the Legislature to enact the very same “universal” education savings account initiative that had been so soundly repudiated by voters just a few years before.
Another way that Republican governors and interest groups have circumvented the popular will on this issue is by identifying anti-voucher members of their own party and supporting pro-voucher candidates who challenge those members in primary elections. This way, they can build legislative majorities to enact voucher laws no matter what conservative voters want.
In Iowa, several Republicans were standing in the way of a major new voucher program as of 2022. Gov. Kim Reynolds helped push them out of office — despite their being incumbents in her own party — for the purposes of securing a majority to pass the measure.
A similar dynamic has developed in Tennessee and in a dramatic way in Texas, the ultimate prize for voucher advocates. There, pro-voucher candidates for the state Legislature won enough seats this Tuesday to pass a voucher program during the legislative session that starts in January, Republican Gov. Greg Abbott has said.
The day after the election, Abbott, who has made vouchers his top legislative priority, framed the result as a resounding signal that Texans have now shown a “tidal wave of support” for pro-voucher lawmakers. But in reality, the issue was conspicuously missing from the campaigns of many of the new Republicans whom he helped win, amid polling numbers that showed Texans hold complicated views on school choice. (A University of Houston poll taken this summer found that two-thirds of Texans supported voucher legislation, but that an equal number also believe that vouchers funnel money away from “already struggling public schools.”)
In the half dozen competitive Texas legislative races targeted in this election by Abbott and the pro-voucher American Federation for Children, backed by former Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, Republican candidates did not make vouchers a central plank of their platforms. Most left the issue off of their campaign websites, instead listing stances like “Standing with Public Schools” and “Increased Funding for Local Schools.”
Corpus Christi-area Republican Denise Villalobos pledged on her website that if elected she would “fight for increased funding for our teachers and local schools”; she did not emphasize her pro-voucher views. At least one ad paid for by the American Federation for Children’s affiliated PAC attacked her opponent, Democrat Solomon Ortiz Jr., not for his opposition to vouchers but for what it claimed were his “progressive open-border policies that flood our communities with violent crime and fentanyl.” (Villalobos defeated Ortiz by 10 points.)
Matthew Wilson, a professor of political science at Southern Methodist University, said that this strategy reflects a belief among voucher advocates that compared to the border and culture wars, vouchers are not in fact a “slam-dunk winning issue.”
In the wake of Tuesday’s results in the presidential election, NBC News chief political analyst Chuck Todd said that Democrats had overlooked school choice as a policy that might be popular among working-class people, including Latinos, in places like Texas. But the concrete results of ballot initiatives around the nation show that it is in fact Trump, DeVos and other voucher proponents who are out of step with the American people on this particular issue.
They continue to advocate for vouchers, though, for multiple reasons: a sense that public schools are places where children develop liberal values, an ideological belief that the free market and private institutions can do things better and more efficiently than public ones, and a long-term goal of more religious education in this country.
And they know that popular sentiment can be and has been overridden by the efforts of powerful governors and moneyed interest groups, said Josh Cowen, a senior fellow at the Education Law Center who recently published a history of billionaire-led voucher efforts nationwide.
The Supreme Court could also aid the voucher movement in coming years, he said.
“They’re not going to stop,” Cowen said, “just because voters have rejected this.”
'He's Not Kidding,' Advocates Warn as Trump Threatens to Defund Schools for Teaching US History
The Republican presidential nominee is threatening funding if teachers "don't teach what he wants," said one teachers union leader. "That's indoctrination and it's dangerous."
Julia Conley
Oct 18, 2024
COMMON DREAMS
Education advocates implored voters to take Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump's latest comments on public schools on Friday after his appearance on the Fox News morning show "Fox & Friends," where he explained how he would punish schools that teach students accurate U.S. history, including about slavery and racism in the country.
Trump was asked by a viewer who called into the show how he would help students who don't want to attend their local public schools, and said he plans to "let the states run the schools" to allow for more "school choice."
"We're gonna take the Department of Education, we're gonna close it," said the former president, explaining that each state would govern educational policy without federal input—a promise of the right-wing policy agenda, Project 2025, that was co-authored by hundreds of former Trump administration staffers.
"Fox & Friends" co-host Brian Kilmeade said the plan was concerning only because it could allow a "liberal city" or state to decide that schools would teach that the country was "built off the backs of slaves on stolen land, and that curriculum comes in."
"Then we don't send them money," replied Trump.
The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) warned, "He's not kidding," pointing to Project 2025, which calls to reduce the role the federal government to "that of a statistics-gathering agency that disseminates information to the states."
"It's in his Project 2025 plan: Trump wants to defund public schools," said the labor union.
The federal government provides public schools with about 13.6% of the funding for public K-12 education. The loss of federal funds could particularly affect schools in low-income communities, resulting in school closures, teacher layoffs, and fewer classroom resources.
Trump's comments touched on the "culture war" promoted by the Republican Party in recent years regarding what they have claimed is the teaching of "critical race theory" (CRT) in public schools. The concept holds that race is a social construct and racism is carried out by legal systems and institutions, through policies like redlining and harsh criminal sentencing laws.
The focus on CRT has resulted in attacks on all "culturally relevant teaching" that takes the experiences of people of color into account and all teachings about the history of the U.S.—particularly about the enslavement of Black people for hundreds of years, Jim Crow laws, the contributions made by racial minorities, and the civil rights movement.
Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), said educators' goal is to "teach students how to think, not what to think"—contrary to right-wing claims that the left aims to "indoctrinate" students.
Trump, she said, is "threatening funding if they don't teach what he wants. That's indoctrination and it's dangerous. Our kids deserve better."
Trump is not alone among Republicans in his calls to defund public education. As the Daily Montananreported this week, GOP Senate candidate Tim Sheehy, a multimillionaire who is running to unseat Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mt.) and is leading in recent polls, has spoken about throwing the Department of Education "in the trash can."
Federal funding accounts for 12% of per-student spending in Montana, where nearly 90% of children attend public schools. The state gets $40 million alone to support students with disabilities.
"Fairly significant harm would be implemented in Montana's public schools if we suddenly snapped our fingers and said, 'No more federal funding of education,'" Lance Melton, head of the Montana School Boards Association, told the Daily Montanan.
Lauren Miller, acting communications director for the AFL-CIO, said the former president's comments on Friday fit "a pattern" evident in numerous policies outlined by Trump and Project 2025.
"He'll defund public schools if they don't obey him," said Miller. "He'll fire government workers if they don't obey him. He'll gut the Department of Justice if they don't obey him. He'll deny FEMA funding to states if they don't obey him."
The Republican presidential nominee is threatening funding if teachers "don't teach what he wants," said one teachers union leader. "That's indoctrination and it's dangerous."
Julia Conley
Oct 18, 2024
COMMON DREAMS
Education advocates implored voters to take Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump's latest comments on public schools on Friday after his appearance on the Fox News morning show "Fox & Friends," where he explained how he would punish schools that teach students accurate U.S. history, including about slavery and racism in the country.
Trump was asked by a viewer who called into the show how he would help students who don't want to attend their local public schools, and said he plans to "let the states run the schools" to allow for more "school choice."
"We're gonna take the Department of Education, we're gonna close it," said the former president, explaining that each state would govern educational policy without federal input—a promise of the right-wing policy agenda, Project 2025, that was co-authored by hundreds of former Trump administration staffers.
"Fox & Friends" co-host Brian Kilmeade said the plan was concerning only because it could allow a "liberal city" or state to decide that schools would teach that the country was "built off the backs of slaves on stolen land, and that curriculum comes in."
"Then we don't send them money," replied Trump.
The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) warned, "He's not kidding," pointing to Project 2025, which calls to reduce the role the federal government to "that of a statistics-gathering agency that disseminates information to the states."
"It's in his Project 2025 plan: Trump wants to defund public schools," said the labor union.
The federal government provides public schools with about 13.6% of the funding for public K-12 education. The loss of federal funds could particularly affect schools in low-income communities, resulting in school closures, teacher layoffs, and fewer classroom resources.
Trump's comments touched on the "culture war" promoted by the Republican Party in recent years regarding what they have claimed is the teaching of "critical race theory" (CRT) in public schools. The concept holds that race is a social construct and racism is carried out by legal systems and institutions, through policies like redlining and harsh criminal sentencing laws.
The focus on CRT has resulted in attacks on all "culturally relevant teaching" that takes the experiences of people of color into account and all teachings about the history of the U.S.—particularly about the enslavement of Black people for hundreds of years, Jim Crow laws, the contributions made by racial minorities, and the civil rights movement.
Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), said educators' goal is to "teach students how to think, not what to think"—contrary to right-wing claims that the left aims to "indoctrinate" students.
Trump, she said, is "threatening funding if they don't teach what he wants. That's indoctrination and it's dangerous. Our kids deserve better."
Trump is not alone among Republicans in his calls to defund public education. As the Daily Montananreported this week, GOP Senate candidate Tim Sheehy, a multimillionaire who is running to unseat Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mt.) and is leading in recent polls, has spoken about throwing the Department of Education "in the trash can."
Federal funding accounts for 12% of per-student spending in Montana, where nearly 90% of children attend public schools. The state gets $40 million alone to support students with disabilities.
"Fairly significant harm would be implemented in Montana's public schools if we suddenly snapped our fingers and said, 'No more federal funding of education,'" Lance Melton, head of the Montana School Boards Association, told the Daily Montanan.
Lauren Miller, acting communications director for the AFL-CIO, said the former president's comments on Friday fit "a pattern" evident in numerous policies outlined by Trump and Project 2025.
"He'll defund public schools if they don't obey him," said Miller. "He'll fire government workers if they don't obey him. He'll gut the Department of Justice if they don't obey him. He'll deny FEMA funding to states if they don't obey him."
No comments:
Post a Comment