The debate swirling around president-elect Donald Trump's potential education agenda highlights a potential rift between charter school backers skeptical of vouchers and the rest of the school choice movement.
Last week, at the annual conference of the Foundation for Excellence in Education, Harvard University Prof. Martin West noted a real concern: Politics is inherently tribal. People might decide to oppose something based on the people they see lining up in favor. A tribal backlash seems to be among the main fears of school choice advocates. One way to reduce that risk? Limit the federal government's role in dictating choice-friendly policies to states.
Jeb Bush described a plan that might bridge this divide, giving states more flexibility to promote school choice as they see fit — whether by steering more money to charter schools that serve low-income students or allowing them to put extra money into "lifelong education savings accounts," as he proposed on the campaign trail.
Meanwhile...
This quote, dug up by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, suggests Trump's likely Education Secretary pick believes in an ecumenical, all-of-the-above approach to educational options:
We think of the educational choice movement as involving many parts: vouchers and tax credits, certainly, but also virtual schools, magnet schools, homeschooling, and charter schools.
The Economist provides a useful reminder that, when it comes to national education policy, the window of possibility is narrow.
Education secretaries are among the least powerful cabinet members. The federal government spends only about ten cents of every dollar that goes toward public schools. States and the more than 13,500 school districts matter more, especially after ESSA, which loosened the regulations placed on local governments.
Since that law passed just last year, Congress will be reluctant to consider a new bill on education reform. Mr Trump’s proposal that $20bn in federal education funding should be diverted towards voucher schemes would struggle to win enough support in the Senate, says Rick Hess of the American Enterprise Institute, a think-tank. Most Democrats would oppose it, he notes. So too might Republicans sceptical of another big federal programme. They would prefer states to make their own decisions about vouchers.
Here's a look at what the Trump Administration might do in an area where it clearly can have an impact: Executive action.
What will it take to pull the nation's farthest-reaching private educational choice program out of legislative limbo?
Unfortunately for ESA advocates, the Nevada Supreme Court intervened, holding that the mechanism which funded the program was unconstitutional. But the ruling offered a way forward if lawmakers paid for the program separately from the public schools budget. Republican state Treasurer Dan Schwartz, acting on advice from Attorney General Adam Laxalt’s office, is continuing to sign up would-be ESA parents and Gov. Brian Sandoval has said ESAs will be part of his legislative priority list.
But [state Sen. Aaron Ford, leader of the new Democratic majority,] said there’s no appetite among Democrats to proceed, no matter how funding is structured. Democrats prefer instead to boost spending for public schools to ensure equity between schools in poorer areas and those in wealthier suburbs, Ford said.
Notably, Ford wasn’t unequivocal in his opposition — he did not pledge that ESAs were dead. But in order to get Democrats on board, Republicans will clearly have to come with some inducements. Watch for ESAs to become the bargaining chip of the session.
In places where charter schools lead to increased segregation, it's worth thinking about why.
Charter schools in North Carolina, like elsewhere in the country, are legally required to be open to all students — but that doesn’t mean all of them are open in practice. For instance, charters in the state do not have to provide transportation or subsidized school lunches. In fact, although most charter schools promised to do so in their initial applications, as of 2011 only about one third offered transportation1 and about 40 percent provided federally subsidized school lunches.
Florida's new Speaker of the House and the head of the statewide teachers continue sparring over the lawsuit challenging tax credit scholarships. As their debate spills into newspaper editorial pages, this is a rare case where it's definitely worth reading the comments. (My employer, Step Up For Students, helps administer the scholarships.)
PBS NewsHour explores the black community's rift over charters.
New York City charter schools' fight for facilities is back in the news.
L.A. Weekly has a new expose of charter schools with ties to a Turkish cleric. Is it connected at all to this law firm's opposition research efforts?
The challenges faced by "intentionally diverse" charters.
Why don't more charter schools offer preschool?
Tweets of the Week
https://twitter.com/NeeravKingsland/status/804406984669704192
Well @LegisEmpress just spoke some truth. Parents need to see themselves in this movement, feel valued instead of used. Listening #EIE16 ?
— Florida Voices For Choices (@FLV4C) December 2, 2016
Quote of the Week
“The difference between Florida and Pennsylvania is those parents in Florida come out en masse.”
- Pennsylvania state Sen. Anthony Williams, D- Philidelphia, on how parent power can change poilitical dynamics, speaking at ExcelinEd's annual summit.
The Week in School Choice is our weekly compendium of news and notes from around the country. Sign up here to get it in your inbox, and send links, tips, pushback or feedback to tpillow[at]sufs[dot]org.
Thanks to Alexis Flowers for her contributions to this installment.
