Connected? Reporting this week from Boston

 At 4 PM last Friday, October 2, State House News Service sent an article entitled as follows: 

Headline reads "Ads critical of Boston Public Schools removed from T"

NBC 10 picked up the article, which you can read here. 

Saturday's edition of the Boston Globe included this column from Adrian Walker, headlined "Dark Money comes for the Boston Public Schools," in which he attempted to chase down who it was that was funding the new "Next Chapter Boston" and their $1.5M ad buy. 

This then spun over the weekend into accusations of who could possibly have made the call to pull the ads, cries of censorship, and no movement towards any discovery of who was funding the ads that would have followed Boston secondary school students on their way to school each morning. 

Should we ever get to the bottom of who funded the ads, it is, as Walker notes: 

People who suddenly pour big money into something like that aren’t just trying to “raise awareness” — whatever that really means. They are trying to influence public policy. And the public has a right to know who they are, and what they really want.

The website, for what it's worth, offers a sign-up and a letter calling for "measurable, public goals" in clear language alongside an explanation of how the budget is being used for "evidence-based instructional practices and curriculum in all subjects."
And maybe that's it. But I think that's a lot of advertising for that.

My guess as to what they want is this: I don't think it is a coincidence that these ads went up the same week that the U.S. Treasury released the rules on the federal voucher program. Massachusetts, as has been noted this week, is neither in nor out; Governor Healey had said she was awaiting the rules to decide. Her response last week was:

 “Well, you know, what I understand is that Treasury has released temporary regulations. I don’t know what that means. So, you know, what I’ve said from the beginning is this, and I’ll continue to say, we need to make sure that nothing harms public education.”

Having the local public transit scream that the largest public school system in the state was failing its students would give an extra push to any riding who might have influence on Beacon Hill as Healey is continuing to decide. 

As others, including Marketplace, have noted, it is private education that is most likely to benefit from these programs. And when we talk about private education (especially in a place like Massachusetts), we tend to think of college prep schools with brick buildings on leafy campuses. For states that already have vouchers, though, that isn't what you should think about. You should think about a few reporters at the local brew pub coming one fire inspection away from approval as a private school, as ProPublica reported this week, in a piece in which they applied to create of a private school in North Carolina, Arkansas, and West Virginia.

And even as it isn't that easy in Massachusetts, where private schools have to be approved by their local school committee, within a limited purview, the chance to use federal funds (the dollars here would have been federal tax dollars) for non-public, non-publicly-allocated and -accountable uses is deeply concerning.

And possibly was worth $1.5M in advertising. 

News of interest

 Some things I have been reading: 

• The Wall Street Journal covers the parent rebellion on about screentime at schools, particularly looking at Lower Merion School District in Pennsylvania, where the school board recently removed an opt-out provision on tech that they'd previously passed. (Cue "that's a bold strategy, Cotton" gif here). 
  It isn't going away, and the level of resistance in some local administrations to even having the discussion is really...odd? I guarantee every district that has an administrator dismissing parent concerns has, somewhere, something about family engagement somewhere in goals (and in Massachusetts, "two-way" communication is part of the state standards for evaluation!).
  
  
• The good news on education policy and such from New Hampshire is sometimes few and far between, so we'll take that Governor Ayotte (a Republican) has vetoed a trans bathroom bill for the fourth time, each of those times by a Republican governor. 
  Republicans in N.H. are also joining with their Democratic colleagues in considering a tightening oversight of the so-called "education freedom" accounts, the thing where families can just take the money allocated for public schools.
  
  
• Continuing our looking north, Vermont signed into law language restricting ICE access to schools, modeled on the policy of Winooski, which has of course received national attention for standing up for its immigrant students.
  
  
• In case you wondered if the Pioneer Institute has changed, the answer from today's Boston Globe editorial page is a resounding 'no.' "Boston charter schools went DEI" is not going to fly, folks.
  
  
• Special education oversight moving to HHS got lots of press, but it appears that Senator Cassidy, who chairs the Senate education committee, is not on board, considering a vote next month to bar it. You might remember that the Senate is what saved the federal education budget last year (implementing this year) from draconian cuts; this actually doing oversight appears to be continuing. 

The voucher question is not entirely sliding below the radar in Massachusetts

 ...as it was mentioned today on NEPM in this exchange between Carrie Healey (NEPM) and Colin Young (SHNS): 

Pressure is mounting on Governor Maura Healey to opt Massachusetts into a new federal scholarship tax credit program. Donors can make contributions of up to $1,700 to an approved scholarship group in a participating state that would be distributed as aid.

This is an issue that has quickly turned into a nationwide political football. While Democratic governors in states like Wisconsin and Kentucky have vetoed participation over concerns that the private voucher system lacks public accountability, Republican gubernatorial hopeful Mike Minogue has upped the ante for Healey by promising a maximum campaign donation if she signs on now (and pledges to enact it himself on day one if he's elected.) So, what is known about how this program would impact Massachusetts education funding?

There's not a lot specifically known.

Now, the teachers unions have come out in full force against this. They argue that this is the same as what's known as the voucher system, where they see it as a siphoning of public money towards private education, where by giving people tax credits for these donations that largely benefit private organizations and private schooling, that it's taking money away from public education.

Now, people being able to take a $1,700 tax credit could help in the name of affordability, at a time when Massachusetts has a really high cost of living and our governor is up for reelection, pledging to tackle that high cost of living. So, she has a real tough spot to be in right now.

What are we hearing from the Healy administration regarding her timeline for a decision?

They're playing the 'wait and see game' big time. They have said they have not decided that the state will not opt in, but they want to see more detailed rules from the US Treasury and the IRS before they actually decide to opt in.

And has the other Republican gubernatorial candidate, Brian Shortsleeve, weighed in on this issue?

He has. He's in support as well. He has said that if he's elected, he would opt Massachusetts in on day one as well.

If they're waiting on more detailed rules, we'll be waiting until the end of September.

It is very worrisome and disappointing that a Democratic governor in this state which prides itself on our public educations system would even need to think about this one, though. 

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 the MA voucher push

 Because OB3, Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill" has a provision for vouchers by state in the language, you knew that others would join the Boston Globe's editorial board in pushing for them in Massachusetts. Thanks to Yawu Miller's coverage of a recent panel at the JFK Presidential Library*, we now know not only that this is happening, but who the players are and what their talking points are going to be:

“Covid relief money is gone, inflation is bad, buses are expensive, special education is expensive,” former Massachusetts Education Commissioner Jeff Riley told an audience of about 200 that filled an auditorium at the museum last Wednesday. “We have an opportunity for this new pot of money to help us with things like expanded learning time, high dosage tutoring, special education services. This seems like a time when people should get together.”

Yes, taking time away from his fulltime job of trying to get schools on the AI bandwagon, our former Commissioner is all in our vouchers, but we're going to frame it as public school assistance. Also involved: 

The National Parents Union is spearheading the local coalition which aims to pressure Gov. Maura Healey to adopt the tax credit program. So far, the group counts 124 organizations in support, including The Pioneer Institute, The Boston Foundation, the Lynch Foundation, 45 individual Catholic Schools, 18 Montessori Schools, 13 Jewish day schools, the umbrella organizations supporting those types of schools and dozens of YMCAs and Boys and Girls Clubs.

NPU will surprise no one, nor will the private schools, but the outside of school organizations no doubt have this sold to them as after school dollars that could be coming their way.

Miller does---as always--an excellent job of framing the issues with the push, very much including that they don't actually work. But he also notes that Governor Healey, whose decision this is, so far has been silent on this issue. That is very concerning. There will be an effort to frame this as a "ed reform" issue, and she has some close to her that are in on that.

Oh, and incidentally: the list of things that Riley includes largely are not things on which the vouchers could be used: 

Despite promises that the scholarships could cover special education services, among other school-related expenses, Fliter said that wouldn’t be true for public schools. The way qualified education expenses are defined by the federal government only includes things for which schools bill parents.

“Unfortunately, when you dig into the text of the statute and what the regulations are from the IRS and from others, it becomes very clear that a qualified education expense, as it’s referenced in the Internal Revenue Code and by the Coverdell Education Savings Account, does not include anything like special education expenses,” Fliter said.

Read Miller's coverage, and then keep an eye out on this one.  

*who maybe don't exercise a say over this, but one does question the venue choice

Open tabs tonight

 Tabs I have open tonight:

• I urge you to read "A Letter from a Minneapolis Mom" by Dara Moskowitz Grumdahl:
  

  This is the story of trying to be a good and moral mom in the city of Minneapolis over the last decade, just like Renee Good and Melissa Hortman were, and how you do it full of uncertainty, in between loads of laundry and grocery runs and kids rolling their eyes at you and generally thinking you’re reckless or a coward, between the Mother’s Day cards that tell you you’re the greatest mom ever

  
  
• Dana Wormald offers commentary on the New Hampshire House Education chair supporting schools segregation, tracing how this gets us (them?) further on support for vouchers.
  
  
• Mark Lieberman went back and did the math to come up with at least $12B that the Trump administration has interfered with in his first year in office.
  
  
• I do recommend reading Matt Barnum's take on the interview last week with Lindsay Burke, 'though I think he's being too generous in finding some explanation in why the federal education policy is incoherent. 
  
  
• I really cannot believe that Massachusetts has two chambers of the Legislature that have decided in all of the things we actually need them to do, they need to weigh in on how we teach kids to read. This straight-up swings the pendulum all one way on reading instruction, which is just not actually how it works¹. And they're going to make it state law, and then we'll be stuck. Such a disservice to us all.

__________________________________

¹stop calling it "evidence-based" and "high quality" in the coverage, by the way; those are not descriptors, but arguments

Things to read this week

 Here are some tabs I have open that I'd recommend reading: 

• When we do facilities in the college class I teach, one thing my students most often remark on is the disparities among play space outdoors: who has a playground? who has access to grass?
  UC Davis is doing some interesting work measuring heat in school playyards, which particularly an issue for urban schools, where often the only play space is a patch of asphalt, and in a warming world. 
  
  
• You may have caught headlines about Alpha Schools, the chain that claims kids can spend just two hours a day with their generative AI "tutoring" overseen by adults who are not teachers. I urge you to read Wired's extensive piece on the actual experience of families, who are now pulling their kids out due to how their children were treated. This particularly matters as the chain is expanding across the country, funded in many places by vouchers.
  
  
• Reports this morning that Louisiana officials hid the whooping cough outbreak for months that killed two infants combined with this ProPublica piece reporting from Idaho, which now bans vaccine mandates, and where advocates hope to spread such laws, continues the trend towards what were preventable illnesses that kill, and particularly kill children, coming back full force. 
  It also increases the urgency of Massachusetts following Connecticut, New York, and Maine in barring religious exemptions.

I really like this red shed and tree across from
one of the elementary schools in East Longmeadow

Proving again that one cannot think too skeptically of the Boston Globe editorial board

 Allow me to quote a footnote to my post of August 6 of this year: 

1The Globe of course has already run a "this raises questions" piece on the national push for vouchers. I don't think it is out of the realm for us to see them run an editorial sometime soon endorsing them, possibly repeating the old "anti-Catholic" canard. Don't be fooled; vouchers are a major failure.

 While they didn't attempt the "anti-Catholic" canard, they did of course blame the teachers' unions for opposition in today's editorial.

All the silly rhetorical attempts of not thinking ideas are bad just because they are Republican and flourishes around creativity won't dodge the vouchers are unpopular across party lines because they stink: they stink for students, they stink for districts, and they stink for state budgets.

Send this one straight to the recycling, all. It doesn't warrant better. 

Public school districts having to provide transportation for other schools hurts public school students

Obligatory school bus photo, from my recent vacation in Canada,
because, yes, I take photos of school buses even on vacation.

Making the rounds right now is this report in The Guardian from Ohio, which, like Massachusetts, requires that public school districts provide transportation to students within their bounds to private and charter school students in their bounds.¹

A shortage of drivers and buses combined with the threat of fines, means that public school districts in Dayton and around Ohio find themselves relegating their own students to the back of the transportation line.

If you haven't read about vouchers in Ohio

 ...do be sure and read the lengthy ProPublica piece published this week. 

What happened in Ohio was a stark illustration of a development that has often gone unnoticed, perhaps because it is largely taking place away from blue state media hubs. In the past few years, school vouchers have become universal in a dozen states, including Florida, Arizona and North Carolina. Proponents are pushing to add Texas, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and others — and, with Donald Trump returning to the White House, they will likely have federal support.

A couple of election-related education stories you may have missed this week

 I'm planning on doing both a "because careful what you wish for/gosh, I wish people would actually read my Board of Ed coverage" post on Question 2 and a "we can't know but here are my guesses" on the coming presidential term, but in the meantime, let's start with some good things that maybe you missed:

• VOUCHERS LOST. Once again, when voters were directly asked "do you want to use public funds for private schools," they said NO. And they said it regardless of how their state was voting otherwise. Every single county in Kentucky voted against vouchers. Nebraska voted no. In Colorado, where the effort was to amend the state constitution to include what they were calling school choice, it was also voted down. Here's some analysis in Forbes and in USA Today. Note that this is in keeping with what we have seen before, though: when vouchers are brought right to voters, they are unpopular. 
  
  
• California passed a large bond bill for school construction. As noted by the ballot measure's spokesperson, “People are seeing the need in real time. When you have a leaky roof, it only gets leakier.”
  
  
• Florida rejected a constitutional amendment to make school board elections partisan.
  
  
• North Carolina voted for Mo Green over Michele Morrow for their state superintendent.
  
  
• Houston voted down their school bond bill--which to be clear is not great!--because their state appointed receiver is so unpopular...which I get.
  

interesting insight from Arizona

 In a report in The New Yorker from Arizona on a violent death of a young man by a gang in a wealthy, majority white town, there's an interesting insight into what school choice and vouchers may be doing to kids: 

Several parents told me that open enrollment contributes to a sense of unrootedness in the East Valley. That feeling was compounded when, in 2022, Arizona became the first state to implement a universal school-voucher program. Students can now have their pick of strip-mall schools, online religious homeschooling programs, or “traditional academies”—charter schools that emphasize discipline and often boast Roman columns out front. The voucher program was designed to help poor children leave failing schools, but a large majority of the money has gone to wealthy families whose children were already enrolled in private education. (The program has also led to a funding crisis for the state, which currently faces a budget shortfall of more than eight hundred million dollars.) “It’s really eroded the sense of community and destabilized what was already a pretty destabilized system,” Beth Lewis, the director of Save Our Schools Arizona, a public-schools advocacy group, said. “Parents will get frustrated with something going on, rightly or wrongly, and they just say, ‘Forget it, I’m going down the street.’ ” Weinberger, a former elementary-school principal, told me, “Schools have to uphold this image to maintain their enrollment. And, because there’s so much competition, principals are encouraged to minimize issues to keep enrollment numbers up.”

Liberty of the truth

Statue of Mary Barrett Dyer by Sylvia Shaw Judson
in front of the Massachusetts State House. The quote on the base reads, 
 “My life not availeth me in comparison to the liberty of the truth.”
Dyer was hanged in 1660 on Boston Common not far from where her statue sits today.

In the midst of the flurry of news surrounding the Diocese of Worcester ending the Worcester Public Schools' lease of the former St. Stephen's Elementary, where La Familia currently is, a reporter asked me if I thought it was due to the district's continuing to teach comprehensive health education in the building, something we know the diocese did not wish to have happen ('though it was not, of course, actually barred by the terms of the lease). 

One can't say, of course, what internal calculations the Chancery made before exercising the clause in the lease that allows them to end it early. I do want to note, again, though, that it raises a very grave question regarding the lease the now-approved Worcester Cultural Academy Charter School has with the diocese.
That lease--currently a lease between Old Sturbridge Village itself and the Diocese--we're told contains the following clause:

Neither Lessee nor any of its employees, servants, agents or invitees shall make any use of the [building] which would be inconsistent with the doctrines or teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, as determined by the Roman Catholic Bishop of Worcester in his ecclesiastical capacity of Ordinary of the Diocese of Worcester in his sole discretion.

It's worth noting how very particular this language is: it does not put what happens in that building under Roman Catholic canon law, or under Roman Catholic teaching as overseen by the Vatican. This is particular to the Bishop as ordinary of the Worcester diocese. 

OSV (and dual charter school) Executive Director Jim Donahue at the time this was made public said:

Once the school is approved, we will review the terms with the Diocese once more to ensure they are acceptable to them and to us.

I would say it is now fair to speculate as to what would be "acceptable" to the Diocese, given their decision of last week.

That this wasn't of graver concern to the Department in their approval process (despite it being brought to their attention) displays a disturbing lack of understanding of the current context of the separation of church and state when it comes to public schools.

Last year's Carson v. Maine Supreme Court decision, rested on the question of the use of vouchers--which are public education dollars--going to religious schools. Maine had barred that; SCOTUS found that this was discrimination. But as many (including me) noted at the time, this opened the question of religious charter schools. In fact, that is where the Oklahoma Attorney General went. 

While Article 103 of the Massachusetts State Constitution bars state funding:

for the purpose of founding, maintaining or aiding any infirmary, hospital, institution, primary or secondary school, or charitable or religious undertaking which is not publicly owned and under the exclusive control, order and supervision of public officers or public agents authorized by the Commonwealth or federal authority or both

which makes us a non-voucher state, the state allowing a charter to operate only "under the doctrines and teachings of the Roman Catholic church" as determined by the local bishop would certainly seem to open a door some are eager to, even as it is barred by the state constitution.

The Pilot piece quoted above was quick to tag the Massachusetts provision as part of the Know Nothing efforts of the Blaine amendment era, but also notes that the separation of church and state goes back farther than that in Massachusetts. And it should, with good reason. 

The Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution is often said to stem from a reaction to the legacy of religious wars in Europe. But here in Massachusetts, we have a legacy much closer to us on the dangers of state making provision for religion. 

I opened this post with a photo of the statue of Mary Dyer that sits next to the public entrance of the Massachusetts State House. Dyer was hanged by the Massachusetts Bay Colony on Boston Common in 1660 due to her preaching, after continually being warned not to, the Quaker faith. 
She did not adhere to the state faith. And she was killed by the state for it.
By our state, Massachusetts. 

SCOTUS did what?

Usual disclaimers: I am not a lawyer. This is very much a lay understanding of what's being sorted out here.  

The Supreme Court released their decision in Carson v. Makin yesterday, causing a good bit of concern, distress, and words of warning in the education universe. I think we need to answer two questions: what was decided, and how much do we in public education need to worry?

In understanding the case, you first need to know that Maine doesn't run public schools in every school district; about half the districts in Maine don't have a secondary school. The state has had a long tradition, then, of instead providing tuition to a school of the family's choice for secondary school. This means the state effectively then has a voucher system for much of secondary education. Until 1981, this included religious schools; in 1981, the Maine attorney general opined that public funding going to private schools was a violation of the Establishment clause, that is the First Amendment bar on Congress making any law "respecting the establishment of religion." The state then required that any state receiving the tuition payments from the state needed to be "a nonsectarian school in accordance with the First Amendment of the Constitution."

Two families brought suit. The majority (Roberts, writing, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett) found for the plaintiffs; Breyer wrote the dissent in which Kagan joined, with Sotomayor joining all but one part (that starts on page 23 of the link above); she filed a further dissent spelling out her objections to that piece (that starts on page 41).

I think the best way of explaining how the majority got there is what both Breyer and Sotomayor note in their dissents: the Establishment clause is held in tension with the Exercise clause which is the "prohibiting the free exercise of" phrase that follows in the First Amendment, but the majority breaks this tension and puts the Exercise clause over the Establishment clause. Congress can't make a law about religion; they also can't prevent people from following their own religion. Effectively, SCOTUS found that by not sending the tuition payments to religious schools, the state was not neutral. Roberts writes, "The State pays tuition for certain students at private schools--as long as the schools are not religious. That is discrimination against religion." (p. 10)

I have to be honest: it's hard for me to believe how just...dumb that statement is. What it is in fact is the state refusing to support religion, which is a principle as old as the Republic, and with good reason. Both Breyer and Sotomayer put this better than I have here, and I recommend reading the dissents if that's of interest. 

Roberts and the majority have rested much of their argument on the 2017 Trinity Lutheran v. Comer case, which you may vaguely remember had to do with playground resurfacing (no, I am not kidding); the church preschool sued because they couldn't get public funding for their playground resurfacing, and SCOTUS found for the church. There's been an attempt at a distinction between if the funds are being used for religious instruction, but it's clear that many of the schools in question--as it is their point!--infuse their religious perspective throughout their curriculum.

What then does this impact?

At this time, the case and its impact rests on state tuition payments to private schools, or vouchers. Thus it is the states that have vouchers that may need to shift. Matt Barnum on Chalkbeat noted that most states that have vouchers already allow for state funding to go to religious schools.

Coverage from Bangor notes that this then needs to be sorted out with anti-discrimination laws in Maine, as it is a teaching of some of the religious institutions in question to discriminate against, for example, LGBTQ students or families. 

What it does not do is require the creation of vouchers; as Chalkbeat has:

Critically, the decision does not require states to offer public funds to private schools. In his majority opinion, Roberts reiterated something he wrote in the 2020 case: “A State need not subsidize private education. But once a State decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious.”

Thus, this decision does not impact Massachusetts, for example, which is a non-voucher state.

However, Breyer (who doesn't have straight vouchers and charters in his dissent) does note the question this raises about charter schools that want to be religious schools, or religious schools simply flipping to being charter schools. Then they don't require vouchers anymore. That big mess was covered back in February by Chalkbeat. There was some discussion of this on Twitter yesterday; check on the school finance list I keep for some of that back and forth.

But that sick feeling in your stomach over the breakdown of church and state being separate in the U.S., stemming from a healthy concern over the religious wars of Europe? Me, too.

SCOTUS finds for Trinity Lutheran; expect to see cases on the Blaine (anti-voucher) amendments

I'll update this post as more comes in. 
The Supreme Court has decided in favor of Trinity Lutheran on a case that involved access to recycled tire scraps (for playgrounds); you can read the full decision here. The case was decided 7-2, Sotomayor and Ginsberg dissenting. The decision was written by Chief Justice Roberts and reads as follows:

The Missouri Department of Natural Resources has not subjected anyone to chains or torture on account of religion. And the result of the State’s policy is nothing so dramatic as the denial of political office. The consequence is, in all likelihood, a few extra scraped knees. But the exclusion of Trinity Lutheran from a public benefit for which it is otherwise qualified, solely because it is a church, is odious to our Constitution all the same, and cannot stand.

Why do we care? As has been bandied about repeatedly over the past few months, there is some connection between this and the argument over school vouchers; thus allowing access to state grants for a religious institution could clear the argument for state support for religious schools.

As always, I'm not a lawyer, but I'm seeing some disagreement with our reading that direction in the decision itself; note for example this footnote:

This case involves express discrimination based on religious identity with respect to playground resurfacing. We do not address religious uses of funding or other forms of discrimination.

One should note, however, that Justice Gorsuch dissents specifically from that footnote.

The larger dissent, written by Sotomayor, is well worth reading:

To hear the Court tell it, this is a simple case about recycling tires to resurface a playground. The stakes are higher. This case is about nothing less than the relationship between religious institutions and the civil government—that is, between church and state. The Court today profoundly changes that relationship by holding, for the first time, that the Constitution requires the government to provide public funds directly to a church. Its decision slights both our precedents and our history, and its reasoning weakens this country’s longstanding commitment to a separation of church and state beneficial to both.

Sotomayor does see this as opening up the possibility of further cases; see the footnote:

The principle it establishes can be manipulated to call for a similar fate for lines drawn on the basis of religious use.

And the conclusion:

If this separation means anything, it means that the government cannot, or at the very least need not, tax its citizens and turn that money over to houses of worship. The Court today blinds itself to the outcome this history requires and leads us instead to a place where separation of church and state is a constitutional slogan, not a constitutional commitment. I dissent.

More as I find it.

Peter Greene comments that churches will "rue the day" of this, as money usually doesn't come without strings:

The separation of church and state doesn't just protect the state-- it protects the church, too. When you mix religion and politics, you get politics. And where federal money goes, federal strings follow. Sooner or later the right combination of misbehavior and people in federal power will result in a call for accountability for private schools that get federal money-- even religious schools. And as the requests for private religious vouchers roll in, folks will be shocked and surprised to find that Muslim and satanic and flying spaghetti monster houses of worship will line up for money, then the feds will have to come up with a mechanism for determining "legitimacy" and voila! That's how you get the federal department of church oversight.

School choice advocate (and so much more!) Betsy DeVos is Trump's choice for Secretary of Education

So, who is she?
If you want to update your Twitter lists, you can find her account here (she was at 450 followers or so when the announcement came through).
The Chalkbeat did a "five things" that would be indicated by her appointment: her big issue is charters, vouchers, school choice: "The DeVos influence is one reason that Michigan’s charter sector is among the least regulated in the country." That gave us Detroit schools that are here, plus commentary around Michigan education like this. (Let me in general just recommend the Detroit Free Press as a resource) The DeVos family used their political donations to sway lawmakers around school choice and related efforts.
She doesn't oppose Common Core (she's on the Jeb Bush spectrum there), so that looks like another campaign point of Trump that we're taking a miss on (we were anyway, as the federal government has no oversight there, anyway, but we could have gotten someone who was going to complain about it).
They also note "Outside of education, her family gave heavily to efforts to ban same sex-marriage in Michigan." This is in keeping with the donations of the family in general, supporting groups that are against legalized abortion, LBGTQ rights, and the like. (UPDATE) The DeVos family also supports the Acton Institute, which recently gave a ringing endorsement to bringing back child labor; Peter Greene covers this well.
She's been upfront about what she sees her political contributions for; she is directly quoted:

“I know a little something about soft money, as my family is the largest single contributor of soft money to the national Republican Party,” wrote DeVos, according to Mayer. “I have decided, however, to stop taking offense at the suggestion that we are buying influence. Now I simply concede the point. They are right. We do expect some things in return. We expect to foster a conservative governing philosophy consisting of limited government and respect for traditional American values.”

There's an extensive article about the family's giving here (from March). The family is among the top funders of conservative politics in Michigan. Not only that, but they have been active in destroying the other side, as in their efforts to get so-called "right to work" legislation passed in Michigan.
The family wealth, as Politico notes, comes from Amway. Richard DeVos, her husband, is the former president of the company; his father (also named Richard) founded the company. The connections Muckety maps out are fascinating: most notably, her brother founded Blackwater, and apparently now is an advisor to the crown price of Abu Dabai.
It is worth noting from a Massachusetts perspective that vouchers are banned by the state constitution (and remember that the next time the Pioneer Institute starts talking about Know-Nothing clauses. It may have been anti-Catholic when it passed; that doesn't mean that separation of church and state should end).
More as I have it.

Vouchers aren't the answer

Last week, the Pioneer Institute hosted a forum and released a report, touting vouchers as something Massachusetts should chase down. The proposal, specifically, is:

school vouchers, worth $6,000 per year for grades K-8 and $8,000 for high school, be offered to 10,000 students with household incomes below 200 percent of federal poverty guidelines.

Note that, per the Private School Review:

The average private school tuition in Massachusetts is $11,847 for elementary schools and $29,049 for high schools

..leaving families that are below 200 percent of the poverty rate to somehow come up with nearly $6000 per elementary student and $21,000 per high school student. Private schools, particularly, the parochial schools Pioneer seems to be targeting, aren't going to be able to scale up their financial aid systems to that level for additional kids.

Additionally, voucher systems are coming under wide criticism across the country, as they aren't doing what they were touted as doing: they don't improve student performance, they don't create "better" schools...they just don't do what they're said to*.

And while harkening back to the "Know Nothing" laws is clever ("we wouldn't want to be perceived as anti-Catholic, now, would we?"), I suspect that the Catholic schools don't really want the degree of state regulation and oversight--and testing--that the public schools now have.
We wouldn't, after all, want to give up "accountability," now, would we?

 *this last link is from 2008, demonstrating that the failure has been going on for some time. And these links are only a few of the plethora from which one can choose with a quick look at voucher research.

Preparing for Capitol Hill Meetings

Zola, Gettsman, Rigsby all doing federal legislation and advocacy
Zola: "a little bit of a different time and place"
"Washington is Washington...one party running the Congress...they want to move ESEA to the floor either in February or early March"

Nearly caucus time! 2014 candidates for Governor on education

As much as November feels forever away, it is nearly caucus time for the state races, and so we're due for a look at the education positions of those running for Governor of Massachusetts.
As only the two major parties have caucuses, we'll stick with them, and, as it happens, we can only look at the Democrats, as you'll see in a moment.

NPR on Romney and vouchers

NPR had a piece this morning discussing Governor Romney's support of vouchers as well as a campaign in which everyone loves "school choice." The point Rick Hess makes on vouchers is important:

Hess says that even if all of those federal dollars come in a backpack with the kid, it would amount to about $2,500 to $3,000 per child. He argues that's just not enough money to entice good schools, especially in the suburbs, to take low-income kids from struggling, inner-city schools.

Nor, of course, is that even close to tuition at a private school.
This is part of a larger national "school choice" push. Usually, that is code for vouchers, 'though this presidential administration has been using it for charter schools. In either case, it represents a fundamental reworking of what we're doing when we publicly fund education.
A democracy necessitates an educated citizenry. If everyone gets a say in who runs things, everyone needs to be able to have some understanding of basic science, economics, history, and so forth, and of course, everyone needs a measure of basic literacy. In order to continue to have a democracy, you need to continue to educate the next generation.
What you are doing is creating your next generation of voters.
(This is partly why, by the way, the discussions over science get so heated. If we educate the next generation on what we're actually doing to the Earth's climate, they may decide to do something about it.)
Thus we all have an interest in the education of children, and so we are all responsible for funding it. At the same time, however, we have a measure of oversight of that education. That's why we elect school boards (as well as representatives and senators and governors). The curriculum they are learning, as well as the circumstances in which they learn it, matters to all of us, whether we have children at all or children in public education.
If you give the public funds away to private schools or to charter schools, you are giving to entities that do not have public accountability. Public accountability isn't just "we can close you if your test scores are lousy." It means your budget books are open. It means your hiring processes are in line with state and federal laws (no exceptions). It means your curriculum is open to public debate and process.
None of which is true for these other systems.
We as Americans have a fundamental interest in the education of the next generation. School choice, when used this way, prevents us from pursuing that interest and maintaining responsibility for the continuation of democracy.
There's no reason for this to be in conflict with parents pursuing what is best for their child. We need, however, not to lose sight of the reason for which we have a public education system in the first place.