Public Education?

Editorial by Greensboro News-Record, December 14, 2013.

The strongest arguments against the state’s new school voucher program aren’t legal ones. The lawsuit filed this week by the president of the N.C. Association of Educators and other plaintiffs raises compelling public policy questions that should have been debated before the legislature hastily budgeted $10 million for private schools this summer. It’s hard to say, however, whether their program violates the state constitution.

The “tuition grants” are troubling in a number of ways. They siphon money — a little to start but surely much more to come — from public school allocations and make funds available in increments up to $4,200 for qualifying students to attend participating private schools.

This was justified as a means to allow parents to pull their children from “failing” public schools for the supposedly higher quality education available in private schools, which they could not otherwise afford.

Ironies abound. The Republican legislature strongly promotes charter schools, the numbers of which are growing rapidly. But these are also public schools that stand to lose students and funding. Furthermore, while public schools and teachers are or will be evaluated against strict accountability standards, private schools face little scrutiny. There certainly are many excellent private schools, but the allure of state money could create an industry of low-cost, low-quality schools. Their principals won’t have to have educational experience, their teachers won’t need credentials, and the public will never know how they spend their money or how the students fare.

It’s hard to believe this program was conceived with the best interests of children in mind. If it had been, it might have been given more debate. Instead, it was quietly added to the massive budget bill.

The plaintiffs contend the program violates the state constitution’s requirement that public funds must be spent only for public purposes and that education funds in particular must be designated exclusively for operating a “uniform system of free public schools.”

There are problems with the claims. The “public purpose” clause has been stretched far out of shape on other issues — paying incentives for private companies, for example. In terms of education, the state for many years provided grants for North Carolina students attending private colleges in the state.

There may be a more valid point that the program is discriminatory, rather than “uniform,” because vouchers are not available to all children.

The greatest weakness of the voucher plan may turn out to be political rather than legal. As critics have noted, some of the private schools eligible for participation discriminate in whom they accept and teach discredited ideas about science based on religious beliefs. And schools of any religious or ideological persuasion could receive tax dollars.

The victory of this lawsuit may be to let more North Carolinians know how some of their tax dollars will be spent and to kindle an overdue political debate.