Editor’s Note: The author of this article is an intern at the court that heard the case described below and was present for the hearing, but did not work on the case.
A West Virginia circuit court heard a case about the constitutionality of the Hope Scholarship Act on July 6. Heralded as hallmark legislation for school choice, the Hope Scholarship provides $4,300 vouchers to families who choose to withdraw their child from public school.
In the first year alone, this was expected to cost the state around $13 million, with a total budget of $100 million set for the scholarship.
Critics of this bill, including the plaintiffs, argued that the scholarship incentivizes parents to pull their children out of public school. Fewer children in public school leads to less funding for those schools.
This contradicts Article XII of the West Virginia Constitution, which requires the legislature to provide a “thorough and efficient system of free schools.” Those who drafted the article stated that, by extension, all taxes gathered for the purposes of education must fund public schools. All state constitutions include similar provisions.
Furthermore, public standards for education do not apply to private education, meaning that taxpayer money would be used to fund schools that discriminate on the basis of gender, sexual orientation or ability. The Hope Scholarship bill explicitly states that private schools seeking to use the vouchers are not required to alter “creed, practices, admission policy, hiring policy, or curriculum.”
The most obvious critique is that private education is designed to break free from the standards and restrictions of public education. Why should it be funded with taxpayer money if the taxpayers have no say over the quality of that education? There’s no precedent for that.
Except, as the defense pointed out, there is: Florida. Last year, without nearly enough fanfare, the state Legislature passed a bill that would give vouchers to families who sought to place their children in private schools.
This bill would grant the scholarships to families that earn up to $100,000 per year and is just one part of the state’s long-standing fight for school choice. Last year, this cost the state about $200 million.
Both bills spark an intriguing discussion about accommodating disabled students. In Florida, the Gardiner Scholarship and the John M. McKay Scholarship for students with special needs were merged into the Family Empowerment Scholarship, which parents of disabled children feared would push their kids out of eligibility.
The plaintiffs in the West Virginia case argued that the voucher program would encourage parents of able-bodied students to remove their children from public school and lower the headcount, thus decreasing the funding. They argued this would disproportionately harm students with disabilities because, for them, school choice is an illusion.
Private schools have no obligation to make accommodations for such students, and medical costs eliminate private school as an option for those with serious illness.
Then again, as the defense rebutted, these vouchers can alleviate some of the financial burden for families that need the extra money to pay for surgery, medication or medical devices.
Of course, if the state simply covered these expenses as a form of health care, that would be a hand-out according to Republicans. But it is not a hand-out if they are using the money to abdicate their responsibility to provide education. Then it is “returning money to the taxpayer.”
Readers may notice that those who defended the bill in court chiefly made arguments about the political efficacy of the bill rather than constitutionality. This is not an omission; the defense’s argument was lacking in its reference to the constitution and did not rebut the plaintiff’s claim that the bill would cripple public education. Instead, they opted to cite anecdotes of families who supported the scholarship.
It is true that there is an immense disparity in education and that finances are the largest barrier for families seeking better education. Those who can afford to will send their children to schools with better facilities, resources and teachers. In that sense, it is progressive to enable low-income families to seek other options for their children’s education.
However, families barely above the poverty line will get the same voucher as those living comfortably in the Florida suburbs or the wealthiest family in West Virginia. Furthermore, the voucher is only worth the cost of educating one student in public school. Low-income families will be hard pressed to find a school that provides a better education than their local public school at the same price, and so the disparity remains.
Rather than funding public schools to ensure that everyone has access to quality education, Republicans are buying their way out of their obligation to taxpayers and advertising the deal as one of opportunity. Thinking of this as a targeted tax refund is a slippery slope. If the state is giving parents money for the public education they do not use, will it do the same for couples who do not have children? No, because public education is for the common good, as are all things for which we gather taxes.
Taxpayers provide for the education of future doctors, engineers, librarians, artists, and leaders; in doing so, they should dictate the quality of that education. Rather than pushing policies that expand the quantity of school choices, Florida (and every state) should provide more quality education. Funding public education is the only way to create equity for school children of all backgrounds.
The vouchers themselves are not the only point of intrigue in this story. Florida, a swing state, is setting the conservative standard for education policy around the country. With a series of vague bans on teaching Critical Race Theory or sexuality as well as the intellectual freedom survey, it is clear Gov. Ron DeSantis is using education as a theater to garner national attention. States with Republican supermajorities look to Florida’s runaway conservatives for legislative inspiration.
During the Hope Scholarship hearing, the gallery was loaded with news cameras and supporters of the bill. After the circuit court deemed the Hope Scholarship unconstitutional, local conservatives flocked to Twitter and flooded Judge Joanna Tabit’s office with calls expressing their disapproval.
Education is emerging as an effective vehicle for mobilizing conservatives without courting strong opposition from the left. As irresponsible as this legislation is, it at least attempts to address the failures of the education system. Democrats are willing to criticize it, but are too feckless to offer an alternative solution such as divesting from other institutions or pursuing progressive taxation to fund public schools.
DeSantis’ monopoly on revolutionary education policy will continue until Democratic leadership takes some initiative.
Check out other recent articles from the Florida Political review here.
Featured image: Special education in a classroom. (Unmodified photo by Pardipdalal used under a Creative Commons license. https://bit.ly/3Pi05g8 )
