Voucher case heard in Supreme Court: Will a ruling bolster the Trump administration’s attempts to shift federal funding for private, religious schools?
Here’s big — and what could be scary — news for the nation and the future of federal and state school funding and the battle against privatization of schools.
The Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday for Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue. The case seeks to bat down any state constitutional objections to private school vouchers — in this case with a focus on a Montana program that would have provided tax credits to companies that provide “scholarships” for parents to send their kids to private, religious schools.
Here’s the take from the New York Times:
Oral arguments in the case, Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, have attracted briefs from President Trump’s Justice Department, which hopes the high court will bolster the administration’s marquee education issue: public funding for private schools.
On the other side, Democratic state governments, school boards and teachers’ unions argue that a ruling in favor of a disbanded voucher program in Montana could open the floodgates for publicly funded religious education while draining traditional public schools.
Such a decision would be a “virtual earthquake” in the public education system, said Randi Weingarten, the president of the American Federation of Teachers. She added that it would send money cascading away from public schools.
“It will basically change 200 years of practice,” Ms. Weingarten said.
The case challenges a decision to shut down a program that provided tax breaks to donors who funded scholarships that families could use at private schools, including religious ones. Montana discontinued the program after a ruling by its high court found that it had violated a provision in its Constitution that prohibited the use of government funding, either directly or indirectly, for religious purposes.
The American Prospect also has a detailed piece on the case, which helps outline who is behind the privatization effort and the organization pushing the lawsuit — the Institute for Justice.
The Institute for Justice’s argument builds on a 2017 case, Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Comer, which allowed a religious preschool to receive funding for a public-playground resurfacing grant program. But two factors distinguish that case. First, the playground was public, and available to all members of the community to use. Second, Chief Justice John Roberts added a footnote in that case effectively invalidating it as precedent, saying it was only applicable to playground resurfacing and does “not address religious uses of funding or other forms of discrimination.”
Nevertheless, the Institute for Justice, whose funders have included the families behind Koch Industries and Walmart, as well as the family foundation of sitting Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, wants the court to apply Trinity’s outcome to Espinoza, and actually extend it by making states fund religious schools. Anything less, they write in their Supreme Court brief, would force students “to choose between attending a school that accords with her beliefs or receiving thousands of dollars in government benefits.” It’s effectively a court-ordered voucher program.
….The Institute for Justice and its who’s-who of right-wing donors want to careen this case down a slippery slope. If you enable a state tax credit that funds a student attending religious school, you also have to give equal parity in all funding to public and private religious schools. That would siphon off large parts of education budgets. “We believe that the people who brought the case brought it to undermine public education,” Weingarten says. “With all the strikes we’ve seen, and the fights to fund our future, this is the last thing we need.” She noted that 90 percent of children attend neighborhood public schools, and this could undermine the entire system.
Initial commentary on the Supreme Court opening arguments today hints that justices are not keen on the case, but mainly because of critical questions they posed about whether the plaintiffs had standing (were injured in any way) by the lower court ruling. We, as Texans, can also be proud that we have fought off more than 25 years of attempts to inject vouchers into our public education funding, meaning that the ultimate ruling in this case might not matter as much for us on that level. Frankly, people like Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick never cared about whether their voucher programs might violate our state constitution. They just failed to make their case. The public doesn’t like using taxpayer dollars for private, and particularly religious, schools, and Texas AFT made sure to make that argument at every opportunity.
Nevertheless, don’t lose track of the insidious attempts that continue — and could impact federal funding that affects us — to try and push voucher programs from the federal level. As the Times reports:
“If we win this case, it will be the U.S. Supreme Court once again saying that school choice is fully constitutional and it’s a good thing,” said Erica Smith, a senior lawyer at the Institute and co-counsel in the Espinoza case. “And that will provide momentum to the entire country.”
Education Secretary Betsy DeVos has proposed a $5 billion federal tax credit scholarship program that would allow states to adopt initiatives much like the one Montana struck down….However the court decides, education policy experts and court observers see an effect far beyond voucher programs.
Lawsuits could compel public agencies to provide comparable funding and benefits to religious schools….“If it’s unconstitutional to exclude private religious schools from a program that provides aid for public schools, it’s hard to see where the line is drawn and where the neutrality principle ends,” said Kevin Welner, the director of the National Education Policy Center and a professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder School of Education. “It’s a fascinating Pandora’s box they could open.”
So keep up your guard. While vouchers may have failed repeatedly in the Texas Legislature, they certainly have left their mark — in a bad way. Patrick, for instance, held hostage $1.8 billion in immediate relief for public education in 2017 trying to pass a voucher bill. The taste for vouchers is bitter for most legislators in Texas, but we don’t need anything from the Supreme Court to add a little sweetener.
By Rob D’Amico, Texas AFT Communications Director
(Follow on Twitter @damicoaustin and @TexasAFT)
