I have been in public education for most of my adult
life and taught in a private school
for 6 years and support both 100%!! I am
grateful
we live in a country where every child, regardless of race, gender,
religion or financial status has the same opportunities for a quality
education as every one else. All children are free and equal.
I want to be clear before you
read any further that this writing is not meant to take a stance either way on
the education bill introduced by Representative Steven King. There are strong
views held by citizens on both sides of this issue and they are noted as such.
I am sharing important information based on what I have found so far, and using
my interpretation of the proposed bill based on my research and current
knowledge of voucher programs already in place:
The H.R.610 — 115th
Congress (2017-2018) bill (nicknamed the
Choices in Education Act) introduced to the house on January 23 repeals the act
of 1965 and would set limits on the federal Department of Ed to the point where
they are authorized to only award block grants to states.
Block grants are grants from the federal government that give each individual
state, county and district the power to distribute that money to a wide range
of services as they see fit for their particular needs. The current bill being
introduced, would allow money for a voucher program where states can distribute
grant funds to ultimately allow parents to become eligible to apply for funding
if they want their child to go to a private school or home school their child.
The bill specified the funds allocated with vouchers ensure the money goes to
education expenses only. Specifically, I believe the aim of this bill is to
offer voucher options for lower income families whose kids otherwise would
never have the chance to attend a private school to meet their educational
needs. One of the current narratives
circulating the media is that the bill wants to specifically defund special
education in public schools. That is not exactly the way the bill reads. In essence, special education services in
some schools may not be as protected as before, if a district decides they are
going to allocate sizable amounts of funding to families of disadvantaged
students who wish to use vouchers for private school or home school. I have
attached the link to the actual bill here.
It is a fact that 14 states now, such
as Indiana and Florida already provide state funded vouchers for parents to
send their child to private school. For example in Georgia, federal funds are
used for voucher funds that go towards a Special Education scholarship program
where poorer parents have the opportunity to send their special needs child to
a school that can better provide for their needs. Another misconception our
there is that vouchers are not needed by rich families who can afford to send
their child to private schools. The current voucher systems already in place,
seems to distribute a large number of the vouchers to parents with children
with special needs and with a financial need. Below is another link from the NCSL which outlines specifically those states and where the vouchers currently go.
When determining whether or not this
bill will help or hurt children in education, I think one must consider these
four questions:
1. Statistically, does a private school
education better prepare students for a successful future? If so, should
vouchers be considered when looking at children in poverty whose parents wish
to send their child to a better school?
2. The power as to where the money goes
will be given to local states so will local states and districts then begin to
defund special education themselves? The current narrative implies the federal
government will be allocating funds, but it will be the states. So wouldn’t the
states have the power to choose where the money goes? I think yes.
The bill simply diminishes the power of the feds to dictate
where the money goes and gives the power to the local authority, and they
decide how it is to be distributed based on the particular needs of a states demographics.
(The bill says they must though, comply with the law and give a portion to a
voucher program for disadvantaged children. ) the bill is in fact forcing all
states to utilize some grant money to go to the voucher system.
3. There are also some discrepancies in
the current narrative being shared by the opposition to the bill. For example,
it has been said that the public school system is being defunded. In reality
public education is not being defunded, however, public schools will be forced
to share a portion of their funding with private schools. This will cause money
in public schools to be cut. Will funds be cut drastically or minimally? It is
impossible to say at this point because it depends on the state and the needs
of impoverished students. I would guess the impact on public schools in a place
like Illinois--because in a city like Chicago where more parents want their
kids currently in inner city neighborhoods to be able to leave a failing public
school and go to a private school—the funding for vouchers might be more
significant than in places like Nebraska. But that is pure speculation on my
part.
4. What kinds of public schools would be
considered at risk of loosing more funding?
a. Exemplary public schools? Probably not
because parents want their kids there.
b. Poor performing schools? Probably so, because
parents don’t like the idea of the quality of their child’s education being
determined simply because they have to attend the school in their neighborhood.
Finally the concern over the repealing
of the No Hungry Kids act: If you look again at the actual proposal states that
the bill repeals a specified rule
(established in 2012) of specific standards for school lunch programs.
However this is not a new concern. In September of 2015, the School Nutrition Association (SNA), once a supporter of
the
act, began lobbying to roll back the changes. Their reasoning is that the
restrictions have driven up the cost and waste, lower sodium presents
challenges for menu items again driving up costs of food when a low sodium diet
in children is questionable when it comes to health concerns, they wanted the
mandate nixed on using whole grains, which has increased waste. In support of
these concerns, the Senate Ag committee Chairman supported the SNA in giving
schools more flexibility in meeting the nutritional standards. Again,
it looks like the repeal is aimed at saving money and giving schools more
choice while handing the reins of control from the Federal government to local states and school districts.
