Choice program deserves defense

Published April 16, 2014

By John Hood

by John Hood, John Locke Foundation and NC SPIN panelist, April 16, 2014.

Liberal activists may fume, and left-wing editorialists may grind their teeth, but legislative leaders are going to defend energetically their 2013 opportunity scholarship bill against lawsuits by the teacher union and other special interests.

Senate leader Phil Berger, House Speaker Thom Tillis, House Speaker Pro Tem Skip Stam (the main architect of the program), and other leaders won’t be defending school choice because they oppose public education. They won’t be defending school choice because some national organization told them to. They won’t even be defending school choice because it enrages their political adversaries, though perhaps that’s a side benefit.

No, North Carolina’s political leaders are defending opportunity scholarships for at-risk and disabled students because it’s the right thing to do.

In virtually no other area of public policy are recipients of a government-funded service forbidden from choosing providers that best meet their needs. No one tells Medicare patients what hospitals they must visit. No one tells food-stamp recipients where they must shop. In education, both federal and state governments provide financial assistance to children who attend child care centers and preschools, as well as to students who attend colleges and universities. Their families are free to choose from among public and private providers of these educational services, with nary a peep out of the usual left-wing suspects.

What makes elementary and secondary education a proper exception to this rule? Nothing. The only distinction is that district-run public schools have until recently enjoyed a monopoly. They simply don’t want to give it up.

It was no surprise that the North Carolina Association of Educators and other groups filed suit to block implementation of the new voucher program for the 2014-15 school year. They worry that once thousands of low-income children are enrolled in schools of choice, it will be practically difficult and politically disastrous to strip them of their choice later on.

It came as more of a surprise, however — and a disappointing one — when Superior Court Judge Robert Hobgood granted the union its desired injunction and issued a poorly reasoned decision about the case. As Institute for Justice attorneys representing potential voucher beneficiaries argued in their own appeal of Hobgood’s decision, the injunction “was granted based on obvious misrepresentations of the North Carolina Constitution, misrepresentations so plain that neither group of plaintiffs could cite any North Carolina precedents on point.”

Indeed, the closest thing to a precedent that anyone has been able to find, a North Carolina Supreme Court decision in 1979 in a case called Hughey v. Cloninger, is helpful rather than harmful to the school choice cause. The case arose when Gaston County began appropriating local tax dollars to the Dyslexia School of North Carolina, a private institution serving students whose special educational needs were not being met by their public schools. A plaintiff sued to stop the county subsidy, a position that the Supreme Court ultimately agreed with — but not, the justices concluded, because taxpayer funding of private education was unconstitutional. Instead, the Court observed that the General Assembly had already authorized “educational expense grants” to North Carolina families of special-needs students attending private schools. Because counties have only the budgetary authority granted to them by the state, Gaston County couldn’t initiate a direct subsidy of the school in question, because the state legislature had already expressed its preference for a voucher mechanism.

Has anything happened since 1979 — any constitutional amendment or interpretation — that makes “educational expense grants” illegal? If so, why didn’t the teacher union and its allies say so in their legal arguments? If not, why wasn’t their case, or at least their requested injunction, dismissed outright?

Whether Attorney General Roy Cooper does the job or legislative leaders hire counsel to do it for him, North Carolina’s opportunity-scholarship program must be defended all the way to the Supreme Court. Its existence doesn’t threaten the existence or dominance of district-run public schools, just as legislative tuition grants for private colleges don’t threaten the existence of UNC and Smart Start grants for private preschools don’t threaten the existence of public ones.

What the program does is give parents more choices. Who’s against that — and why?

http://www.carolinajournal.com/daily_journal/index.html

April 17, 2014 at 7:03 am
Bill Worley says:

John creates an issue where there is not one. Why is it that modern day conservatives love to take the exception, claim it is the rule, and devise a plan to fix that which rarely happens? This is why non-conservatives are at least suspicious that the motivation for legislation like this is actually hatred for public education in general - there's so little problem here, it doesn't warrant the effort. Charters were supposedly going to be research schools that would find the magic pills to " fix" education and then share them to make ALL schools better. Well, number one, no such pill exists. Number two, charters NEVER intended to help anyone but themselves and those financially invested in them. Nice try John.

April 17, 2014 at 8:29 am
Richard Bunce says:

The government education bureaucrats and their government education industrial complex masters do not want realtively low income parents to have the same education choice for their children that realtively wealthy parents, including government education bureaucrats, elected officials, government school administrators/teachers, have for their children. Holding these parents children hostage in failed government school systems where the majority of students are not proficient at basic skills is viewed as the last stand for the government education industrial complex. If these children escape their grip then real education reform will end their destructive reign.