A voucher by any other name

 ...still doesn't smell sweet, with all apologies to Shakespeare.

You may have noticed a recent flood of reporting around the--let's call them what they are!--vouchers that are a creation of the OB3 bill. This is due to Deputy Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy Kevin Salinger having delivered remarks in a closed-door session earlier this week which were subsequently released. The provision of the bill goes into effect in January; guidance was expected, well, now, but now we are told is coming the end of September. I think that this this summary from Education Counsel out of D.C., is also useful, as is this resource guide from In the Public Interest.

You might remember that this is a pass through: those able can donate to an organization that then provides scholarships from those funds to those eligible, in any state in which the governor has opted into the program, who are from a household with income no greater than 300% of the area’s median gross income. The voucher piece of this is a redirection of what would be federal tax dollars instead to, through the pass-through, private education; per K-12 Dive: 

Starting in 2027, taxpayers will be able to donate up to $1,700 annually to a scholarship-granting 501(c)(3) organization. They then would be eligible for a 100% federal income tax credit for their contributions.

You get a federal tax break if you do this. 

You might remember from the write-up I did of the first round of the Massachusetts push about this the rosy picture of what this can be spent on doesn't bear out. Josh Cowen, whose work on vouchers I appreciate a great deal, came out with what I'd characterize as a "get that money" post this week. As he outlines: 

Yes. Even under the most narrow interpretation of the law, school districts can provide services that students may purchase in addition to their state-funded base funding that comes with enrollment.

The key words there are "may purchase." This is not funding that flows to schools from the public education they, by law, already provide. This for additional programs that families can CHOOSE TO BUY from the school district, that the district creates (or I suppose already has, if a school already charges for some sort of bonus services). The problem, and I again think Peter Greene has outlined this well, is that this has nothing to do with the provision of public education to all students: 

...schools could be explicitly offering a Basic Minimum track. That Basic Minimum could be funded by local taxpayers, and everything offered in the Premium track would be funded with federal dollars, leaving the “extra” offerings at the mercy of donor generosity and federal rule-making. Instead of moving closer to fully funding public schools, federal vouchers will provide excuses to fund them less.

Again, these are not dollars that are going to flow into public schools to "support" programs we already are required to have. The only way this will go to public schools is if they are for shiny special programs that cost more and are outside of the requirements of the school. Anyone who argues otherwise hasn't done the reading. 

Cowen's main point (I think it is fair to say) is that these dollars are going to be coming from every state, and so every state should be sure that they can also receive them. I will say that this "money only flows out" argument doesn't hold a lot of water with me, as I am familiar with the way the federal revenue and expenses work with relationship to my state. 

I also don't buy the idea--agreeing with Joshua Weishart, who outlines it well in this thread--that there isn't a real cost to public education in this system. First, we have ongoing concerns over if federal education funding is going to continue and continue to serve those most in need. I do think this gives fodder to those looking for cuts, if what they see are 50 states opting into systems that remove dollars from federal public coffers and redirect them to private (or privately directed) education. We don't need Title I any more then, right? Or IDEA?

There is a basic question here: Do we believe in public education of all at the public expense or not? It thus isn't entirely a surprise at who we see, even here in Massachusetts, coming out in favor of such a program; this is another round of neo-liberal education reform, which was unfortunately popular on both sides of the aisle. To again quote Peter Greene: 

But what is not being discussed is the effect that such a system could have on the public school mission. From “we are going to try to give your child the best possible education we can afford” to “we are going to give your child the bare minimum and if you want more than that, you’ll have to either pay for it yourself or go shopping for a voucher.” From a system funded and controlled locally with assistance from the state to a system that depends on donations funneled through the federal government.

I will again say that I am concerned that this may have popularity near the Governor's office. We need to be clear: this is not money that can support the programs we need to provide in public schools. 

Here comes Alpha Schools in Massachusetts

 The Boston School Committee this week approved the opening of an Alpha School in Boston. I think those comments quoted are of note: 

The approval was largely a formality. Under state law, the committee had to evaluate whether Alpha met the basic requirements for a school in Massachusetts, though the board has no supervisory role over private schools.

Superintendent Mary Skipper called those state requirements “fundamentals” that don’t guarantee that a proposed private school will succeed.

“I can say that what lies on paper, and what actually it takes [to] make it successful, are very different things,” Skipper said.

Board members also criticized the state evaluation process because it takes resources from Boston’s public school system.

“We are basically approving competitors at a time when resources are short and parents have needs and the needs are great,” said Jeri Robinson, the committee’s chairperson.

Don't think Boston will be the end of it; my understanding is that they have also applied to open in at least Lexington.  

How subcommittees work

 In which John Adams recounts talking Thomas Jefferson into writing the draft of the Declaration of Independence: 

Yesterday was the anniversary of this historic subcommittee meeting. This is, of course, the account Adams gave, which is why you should also take good minutes, lest only one person's version of the meeting persist! 

"Turtles all the way down": Rhode Island looks at how they fund schools

 Our neighbors to the south here in Massachusetts are sending their school finance study to a study: 

At Tuesday’s finance hearing, Sen. Jonathon Acosta, a Central Falls Democrat, expressed his ire that another commission was needed to study the findings of a different commission. He noted the Blue Ribbon panel had itself spun off in part from a previous Senate commission which also studied the funding formula and wrapped up its final report in 2020.

“In so many ways, just turtles all the way down,” Acosta said.

Nevertheless, Acosta deemed Gallo’s new proposal “a significant step forward” and “a signal that the State House is willing to do something,” although any rollout of Blue Ribbon recommendations would likely would not begin until 2028.

As every state's finance system for schools is different, I found this bit about Rhode Island's of interest: 

 Key to the Blue Ribbon recommendations is expanding state funding beyond what the panel saw as a somewhat myopic focus on direct instructional costs, which comprise the bulk of current state aid to schools. The Blue Ribboners concluded that the state should pursue what the report called “full funding” for municipal school districts — a model which would fold costs such as transportation and teacher pensions into the state’s obligations.

Inside Google's AI academy report

 We know from leaked documents that Google considers schools “pipeline of future users,” as leaked documents have shown, and it appears that being "Google trained," as the AI bubble continues onwards, isn't sufficient, as Google is now training Google Gemini evangelists, as NBC news reports.  

I recommend reading it, though I'll also note that Peter Greene does quite a nice job of channeling some of the rage I feel reading it, as well. The observation I'll make is that the notion that those objecting to or opposing the use might have any valid points is of course waved away. 

One must convert or one is not worthy of consideration. 

Screen audit in Cambridge

 The Globe writes today about the work the Cambridge Public Schools has done on auditing their screen use. You might remember my writing about this  back in February, when the Crimson wrote about it. You can find the May 19 report to the Cambridge School Committee online here. Their main takeaway:

Again, note that the district has taken the concerns of families seriously, has done real work on it, and the district is changing policy and procedure as a result. 

Watch those school bus camera contracts

 Because we cannot have nice things, it appears, 404 Media reports that BusPatrol, the school bus stop arm cameras purveyor, that many of us have worked so hard to get legalized are now sharing data directly with police departments well outside of the context of illegally passing stopped school buses: 

BusPatrol has already taken steps to share the collected data with law enforcement contracting giant Axon, according to leaked BusPatrol documents and a source with knowledge of the plans. Internally, BusPatrol has acknowledged how controversial its plan to collect and share this data is pointing specifically to concerns about ICE using license plate data, but emphasizes the likely success of selling the angle of protecting children.