tag:theconversation.com,2011:/africa/topics/neovouchers-37839/articlesNeovouchers – The Conversation2017-07-09T23:46:34Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/805882017-07-09T23:46:34Z2017-07-09T23:46:34ZThe Supreme Court, religion and the future of school choice<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/177157/original/file-20170706-10491-1qzlnvg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=588%2C109%2C4472%2C3110&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The Supreme Court's decision in the Trinity Lutheran case is blurring the lines between church and state.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/chiangmai-thailand-march-222015-two-boys-262562096?src=V_7R_iqvQZsrSIcdYp1ZIA-1-3">aradaphotography/Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The Supreme Court <a href="https://apnews.com/a494b90c0244404183483df6a8618a66">recently decided</a> that Trinity Lutheran Church should be eligible for a Missouri state grant covering the cost of recycled playground surfaces. Though the state originally rejected the church’s application on grounds of separation of church and state, <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/2016/15-577">the Supreme Court ruled</a> that this rejection was, in fact, religious discrimination.</p>
<p>The case’s impact will probably reach well beyond playgrounds.</p>
<p>As a scholar of education law, I’ve been following the Trinity Lutheran case and what it could mean for the hottest issue in education: school choice. Where in the past states have decided for themselves whether religious schools are eligible for <a href="http://www.ncsl.org/research/education/voucher-law-comparison.aspx">school vouchers</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/tax-credits-school-choice-and-neovouchers-what-you-need-to-know-74808">scholarship tax credits</a>, the Trinity Lutheran decision likely signals that the Supreme Court will soon require states to include religious private schools in their programs.</p>
<p>This would be a huge win for school choice advocates and would complete a revolution in the Supreme Court’s understanding of the law on government funding of religious institutions.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/177159/original/file-20170706-10491-10ce14v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/177159/original/file-20170706-10491-10ce14v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/177159/original/file-20170706-10491-10ce14v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/177159/original/file-20170706-10491-10ce14v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/177159/original/file-20170706-10491-10ce14v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/177159/original/file-20170706-10491-10ce14v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/177159/original/file-20170706-10491-10ce14v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Activist group Concerned Women for America shows support for Trinity Luthern Church in front of the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Of church playgrounds and discrimination</h2>
<p>In 1995, Missouri established <a href="https://dnr.mo.gov/env/swmp/tires/tirefinassistance.htm">a program offering reimbursement grants</a> to qualifying nonprofits that installed playground surfaces made from recycled tires. Trinity Lutheran Church, which runs a preschool and daycare center, applied for a grant in 2012, but the state rejected the church’s application. Why? The <a href="http://www.moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/ConstArticles/Art01.html">Missouri Constitution</a> states that “no money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, sect or denomination of religion.”</p>
<p>Trinity Lutheran challenged the state’s decision as a violation of <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/free_exercise_clause">the Free Exercise Clause</a>, and in June the U.S. Supreme Court <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/582/15-577/opinion3.html">agreed</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/177217/original/file-20170706-23390-q29erx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/177217/original/file-20170706-23390-q29erx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/177217/original/file-20170706-23390-q29erx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/177217/original/file-20170706-23390-q29erx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/177217/original/file-20170706-23390-q29erx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/177217/original/file-20170706-23390-q29erx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/177217/original/file-20170706-23390-q29erx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Scrap Tire Surface Material Grant was awarded to two applicants in the 2017 fiscal year.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/ssedro/384644450/in/photolist-5afdGE-aMshTP-6bUGGs-7qgcDn-6cdYdp-68FByJ-kFYcYp-6ci7wL-kFYe6z-6uUeDY-kGZtwT-6uUeFo-kFYeti-7Yn2fJ-6uUeFY-6uUeRu-6uUeZo-6uQ4w2-6uQ4r2-kFZMmq-6uQ4gv-6uUeN5-6uQ4qF-6uUeKE-6uUeYu-zZpoS-6uQ4k4-6uUeUW">ssedro</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This result will strike many as <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/26/opinions/religious-liberty-battle-shapiro-opinion/index.html">intuitively correct</a>. A playground is a playground whether or not it’s run by a church, so the threat to separation of church and state seems slim, and the cry of religious discrimination seems plausible.</p>
<p>The case’s reasoning, however, may signal a significant shift in how the law views the separation of church and state. To understand why, we need to review some history.</p>
<h2>1784: Three pence to religious education</h2>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/177225/original/file-20170706-18401-1n6qfpn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/177225/original/file-20170706-18401-1n6qfpn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/177225/original/file-20170706-18401-1n6qfpn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=742&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/177225/original/file-20170706-18401-1n6qfpn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=742&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/177225/original/file-20170706-18401-1n6qfpn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=742&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/177225/original/file-20170706-18401-1n6qfpn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=933&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/177225/original/file-20170706-18401-1n6qfpn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=933&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/177225/original/file-20170706-18401-1n6qfpn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=933&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">In 1785, James Madison wrote his ‘Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments,’ asserting that religion should be kept separate from government.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/96522271/">Library of Congress</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In 1784, <a href="https://classroom.monticello.org/media-item/a-bill-establishing-a-provision-for-teachers-of-the-christian-religion/">Patrick Henry proposed a bill</a> in the Virginia legislature that would have levied a tax to support “teachers of the Christian religion” (i.e., ministers). James Madison, however, <a href="https://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/primary-source-documents/memorial-and-remonstrance/">successfully opposed the bill</a>.</p>
<p>On the question of funding religion with tax money, Madison asked: “Who does not see that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?”</p>
<p>More than 150 years later, in <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/330us1">Everson v. Board of Education</a> (1947), this controversy played a prominent role in the Supreme Court’s interpretation of <a href="http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/first-amendment-and-religion">the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/177151/original/file-20170706-26461-13r9rs2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/177151/original/file-20170706-26461-13r9rs2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=749&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/177151/original/file-20170706-26461-13r9rs2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=749&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/177151/original/file-20170706-26461-13r9rs2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=749&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/177151/original/file-20170706-26461-13r9rs2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=941&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/177151/original/file-20170706-26461-13r9rs2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=941&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/177151/original/file-20170706-26461-13r9rs2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=941&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Justice Hugo Black in 1937.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/cph.3b00098/">Library of Congress</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In applying the Establishment Clause to states for the first time, the justices in the Everson case emphasized Madison’s objections to the Virginia tax in concluding that the framers of the Constitution had intended to establish “a wall of separation between Church and State.”</p>
<p>In <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/330/1/case.html">the Everson decision</a>, Justice Hugo Black interpreted this “wall” to mean:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion.”</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>The Supreme Court changes its tune</h2>
<p>Until the mid-1980s, the Supreme Court <a href="http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1335&context=ijgls#page=20">mostly adhered</a> to the no-funding mantra announced in the Everson case. Gradually, however, the court’s commitment to such hard-line separation waned.</p>
<p>Much of this came down to a shift in perception: The 21st century is very different from the world of the 1780s, where government was small and taxes relatively rare. Today, government is pervasive, and government money flows to a wide range of institutions. Increasingly, the Supreme Court recognized that allowing some money to flow to religious institutions via general government grant programs was <a href="http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1335&context=ijgls#page=19">quite different</a> from the Virginia tax Madison had opposed.</p>
<p>By <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/2001/00-1751">2002</a>, the court had settled on its current approach to the Establishment Clause – an approach <a href="http://www.pewforum.org/2009/05/14/shifting-boundaries-the-establishment-clause-and-government-funding-of-religious-schools-and-other-faith-based-organizations/">much more permissive</a> than what was laid out in the 1947 Everson case.</p>
<p>Fast-forward to 2017, and seven justices agreed that giving Trinity Lutheran Church its playground grant would not violate the federal Establishment Clause. (Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/582/15-577/dissent7.html">dissented</a> on this point.)</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/177179/original/file-20170706-18989-16xcvlj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/177179/original/file-20170706-18989-16xcvlj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=461&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/177179/original/file-20170706-18989-16xcvlj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=461&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/177179/original/file-20170706-18989-16xcvlj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=461&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/177179/original/file-20170706-18989-16xcvlj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=580&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/177179/original/file-20170706-18989-16xcvlj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=580&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/177179/original/file-20170706-18989-16xcvlj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=580&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Ralph Reed, chairman, Faith & Freedom Coalition, pictured at an event in 2014, has spoken in favor of Trinity Lutheran Church.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/Molly Riley</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>State bans on funding religion</h2>
<p>So, the Supreme Court now holds a more forgiving position when it comes to separation of church and state. But what about individual states?</p>
<p>Nearly every state has provisions in its constitution that address state support for religion, and many of these provisions (like Missouri’s) are more stringently worded than the federal Establishment Clause. Such a provision is exactly why students in <a href="http://caselaw.findlaw.com/vt-supreme-court/1396322.html">Vermont</a> can’t use state funds to attend religious schools. It’s also, perhaps, why some states have not yet adopted voucher policies: Voucher advocates tend to want religious schools to be eligible, but <a href="http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/charterschoice/2017/01/why_michigan_doesnt_have_school_vouchers_and_probably_never_will.html">state constitutions often stand in the way</a>.</p>
<p>So, what happens if state constitutional law is more separationist than the Supreme Court’s current reading of the Establishment Clause?</p>
<p>The Supreme Court faced this question once before in <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/2003/02-1315">Locke v. Davey</a> (2004). The state of Washington offered “Promise Scholarships” to students meeting certain academic and income criteria, and college student Joshua Davey met those criteria. He lost the scholarship, however, when he declared a major in “pastoral ministries” because Washington understood its state constitution to ban the use of public money to support the pursuit of any degree in “devotional theology.” In other words, Washington was taking a stringent view on separation of church and state.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/177165/original/file-20170706-13395-1qn3hn5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/177165/original/file-20170706-13395-1qn3hn5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=417&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/177165/original/file-20170706-13395-1qn3hn5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=417&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/177165/original/file-20170706-13395-1qn3hn5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=417&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/177165/original/file-20170706-13395-1qn3hn5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=524&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/177165/original/file-20170706-13395-1qn3hn5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=524&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/177165/original/file-20170706-13395-1qn3hn5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=524&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Joshua Davey speaks to reporters outside the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. in 2003.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/Dennis Cook</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Davey argued that excluding ministry students from the scholarship opportunity was a kind of religious discrimination, violating his right to freely exercise his religion. </p>
<p>The Supreme Court ruled 7 to 2 against Davey. <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/540/712/opinion.html">Chief Justice William Rehnquist explained</a> that in a federal system, states should have the right to insist on greater separation of church and state than the federal Establishment Clause requires.</p>
<p>While federal law would not prevent Washington from giving Davey a scholarship, the state could also choose to uphold its stricter separation – without violating the Free Exercise Clause. In other words, just because Washington could fund Davey didn’t mean that it had to.</p>
<h2>Does separationism equal discrimination?</h2>
<p>Since 2004, lower courts have generally interpreted Locke v. Davey to say that states <a href="http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-1st-circuit/1459164.html">may choose</a> to exclude religious applicants from public funding programs. Trinity Lutheran will change that.</p>
<p>At least six justices agreed that Missouri’s exclusion of the church from its grant program was religious discrimination, pure and simple – and that this trumps the state’s desire to enforce a strict separation of church and state. <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/582/15-577/opinion3.html">Justice Roberts</a> determined that the judgment in Locke did not apply here, as the discrimination alleged in the two cases was different. Justices <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/582/15-577/concur4.html">Thomas</a> and <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/582/15-577/concur5.html">Gorsuch</a> suggested that there was improper religious discrimination in both cases. </p>
<p>Despite their different views of Locke, these justices agreed that the court was required to analyze Missouri’s grant denial under “<a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/strict_scrutiny">strict scrutiny</a>.” This is the same level of review the court would give to, for instance, an express ban on Muslims entering the country.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/177166/original/file-20170706-26461-1j76yqi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/177166/original/file-20170706-26461-1j76yqi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/177166/original/file-20170706-26461-1j76yqi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/177166/original/file-20170706-26461-1j76yqi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/177166/original/file-20170706-26461-1j76yqi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/177166/original/file-20170706-26461-1j76yqi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/177166/original/file-20170706-26461-1j76yqi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">In his opinion in the case, Justice Roberts stressed the differences between Locke v. Davey and Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/Stephan Savoia</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This is remarkable. Though Joshua Davey had asked the court to review Washington’s scholarship policy under strict scrutiny, the court declined to do so. In that decision, the justices determined that separation of church and state and religious discrimination were horses of a different color. The Trinity Lutheran decision suggests that, at least in the context of general funding programs, the court will now view separation of church and state – a position the court once wholeheartedly embraced – as a kind of religious discrimination.</p>
<h2>What happens next?</h2>
<p>Standing against this reading of the Trinity Lutheran decision is… well, a footnote. Footnote 3 in Justice Roberts’ opinion reads:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“This case involves express discrimination based on religious identity with respect to playground resurfacing. We do not address religious uses of funding or other forms of discrimination.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The footnote suggests that the implications of the decision are narrow and shouldn’t be applied to, say, school vouchers. But it’s hard to reconcile the footnote with the seemingly widespread ramifications of the opinion’s text.</p>
<p>Indeed, the day after deciding the Trinity Lutheran case, the Supreme Court <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/062717zr_6537.pdf">vacated</a> four lower court decisions in <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court...Court/Opinions/.../13SC233.pdf">Colorado</a> and <a href="http://www.nmcompcomm.us/nmcases/nmsc/slips/SC34,974.pdf">New Mexico</a> that allowed the exclusion of religious schools from general aid programs. The state courts had based their rulings on separationist language in their state constitutions, but the Supreme Court asked the states to reexamine those decisions in light of Trinity Lutheran. Given the Supreme Court’s treatment of these cases, Footnote 3 may not be much of a limitation after all.</p>
<p>The Colorado and New Mexico courts will have the first shot at deciding what Trinity Lutheran means for school choice. In my view, though, the Trinity Lutheran case signals that the Supreme Court will now generally treat separationist exclusions of religious institutions from government funding as religious discrimination.</p>
<p>If that’s right, we’ll soon have completely flipped the law on government funding of religious schools. Where it had once seemed fairly clear that government money could not be used to support religious instruction at all, it may be only a matter of time before the Supreme Court requires voucher programs to treat religious schools the same as their secular peers.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/80588/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John E. Taylor does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The Trinity Lutheran case signals the Supreme Court’s willingness to interpret separation of church and state as religious discrimination. What will this mean for the future of vouchers and school choice?John E. Taylor, Professor of Law, West Virginia UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/780712017-05-23T21:08:04Z2017-05-23T21:08:04ZTrump budget would abandon public education for private choice<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/170383/original/file-20170522-7364-1mvj6o8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos and President Donald Trump participate in a round-table discussion during a visit to Saint Andrew Catholic School in Miami. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/Alex Brandon</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The Trump administration has announced its plan to transform education funding as we know it. The new <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/budget/fy2018/budget.pdf">budget proposal</a> takes aim at a host of elementary, secondary and higher education programs that serve needy students, redirecting those funds toward K-12 school choice in the form of vouchers, tax credits and charter schools.</p>
<p>Public schools that enroll a large percentage of low-income students stand to lose significant chunks of their budget, as well as a number of specialized federal programs for their students. At the same time, the Trump budget will incentivize families to leave not only these schools, but public schools in general.</p>
<p>As a scholar of education law and policy, I note that my recent <a href="https://ssrn.com/abstract=2745915">research</a> on state voucher and charter programs shows that the loss of both money and core constituents proposed by this new budget could throw public education into a downward spiral.</p>
<h2>The proposed changes in federal funding</h2>
<p>Through Title I of the <a href="https://www.ed.gov/essa?src=rn">Elementary and Secondary Education Act</a>, the federal government currently sends US$16 billion a year to public schools to provide extra resources for low-income students. While Title I is the single largest federal grant, the federal government spends <a href="https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2016/2016301.pdf">more than twice that amount</a> through a multitude of other programs. School systems like those in Miami, Milwaukee, Houston, San Antonio and Detroit get anywhere from 15 to 25 percent of their funding from the federal government.</p>
<p>The new budget proposes about <a href="http://www.npr.org/2017/03/16/520379061/read-president-trumps-budget-blueprint">$4 billion</a> in cuts to programs like literacy for students with disabilities and limited English proficiency, class-size reduction, and after-school and summer programs.</p>
<p>The Trump administration promises the money is not really gone; it’s just coming back under different <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/budget/fy2018/2018_blueprint.pdf">policies</a>. The administration plans to add $1 billion to Title I, but the additional money comes with a big catch: States must spend that money on school choice. To access the new money, states and districts would have to adopt student enrollment policies that allow families to choose their own schools and take public money with them. </p>
<p>This would fundamentally change the way states have funded schools and assigned students for the past century. While choice policies have significantly grown in recent years, the vast majority of districts continue to assign students to a public school <a href="https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010004.pdf">based on where they live</a>. If families choose to leave the district to attend another school (i.e., a charter school), local school funds remain with the district. A substantial chunk, if not all, of state and federal dollars typically stay with the district as well. </p>
<p>Trump’s proposal would have all of the local, state and federal dollars follow the child, regardless of the school the student attends. Choice advocates argue that this gets the government out of the driver’s seat and brings market forces to bear on public schools. Competition, they reason, will <a href="http://educationnext.org/does-competition-improve-public-schools/">improve public schools</a> and, thus, benefit everyone. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/170379/original/file-20170522-7329-541bh4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/170379/original/file-20170522-7329-541bh4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/170379/original/file-20170522-7329-541bh4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/170379/original/file-20170522-7329-541bh4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/170379/original/file-20170522-7329-541bh4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/170379/original/file-20170522-7329-541bh4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/170379/original/file-20170522-7329-541bh4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">In January, Georgia Charter Schools Association and GeorgiaCAN sponsored a school choice town hall to discuss school choice implications for minority families in Georgia.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Branden Camp/AP Images for Georgia Charter Schools Association</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The threat to low-income schools</h2>
<p>Studies have shown that while decreased student enrollment does reduce some public school costs, <a href="http://www.columbia.edu/%7Err2165/pdfs/nycharterfiscal.pdf">other costs remain fixed</a>. School buses drive the same routes. Air conditioners run just as much. And, quite often, the school still needs the same number of teachers. When states fail to account for these realities, they can <a href="http://www.npr.org/2012/02/06/146482651/penn-school-district-goes-broke">drive school districts into bankruptcy</a>. </p>
<p>Under Trump’s proposal, when a student enrolls in a charter school, that student will take not only federal funding with them, but all of the state and local funding that previously supported the local school. This would effectively reduce the funding for the local school without reducing its costs. </p>
<p>The effect on high-poverty districts could be catastrophic. On average, school districts serving predominantly low-income students already receive significantly less <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxtYmwryVI00VDhjRGlDOUh3VE0/view">state and local funding</a> than others. In Nevada, for instance, predominantly middle-income schools spend $10,400 per pupil, whereas schools serving just a moderate number of low-income students spend only $6,100 per pupil. Taking more money away from needy schools would likely widen these gaps. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/170362/original/file-20170522-25082-19509hp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/170362/original/file-20170522-25082-19509hp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=362&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/170362/original/file-20170522-25082-19509hp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=362&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/170362/original/file-20170522-25082-19509hp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=362&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/170362/original/file-20170522-25082-19509hp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=455&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/170362/original/file-20170522-25082-19509hp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=455&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/170362/original/file-20170522-25082-19509hp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=455&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Arne Duncan gives a speech at Seaton Elementary School in Washington, D.C. in 2015.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/departmentofed/16263354861/in/photolist-qM8WN2-6zavLU-quJ5H1-fppnTQ-qMdWWu-pQi7wq-qM8RJz-qM8TjP-qMibFD-7jtyH4-mv7J98-dyTETy-fCSqyF-br76gk-sKTxfn-fzAsnr-quSBbP-mv8fhT-quSAjZ-9TustP-dcdTw3-qK1mV3-quJWus-qMidwn-quRo4F-quJ59A-quSA1T-quSyR8-brEVKS-8LWRhy-8QDXNV-mwVv6J-9EEeF3-eHRg2n-oS9rk4-7bgeuu-hgatbR-pQibcm-qM8UGi-quJ6Mq-cWMyYJ-8QDXKK-qK1qqE-cWMzFE-qMigtV-pE4eyL-dyTEAQ-mbdiRH-fpahqa-8QDXHt">US Department of Education/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>States, of course, can stick with the traditional rules for spending federal Title I money, but if they want additional money from Trump, they have to agree to his choice proposal. History has shown that states are typically willing to do anything to get new federal education money, even when it’s a bad idea. In 2009, Secretary Arne Duncan offered even less money for states to adopt controversial <a href="https://ssrn.com/abstract=2485407">teacher evaluation systems and the Common Core</a>. While those policies <a href="https://ssrn.com/abstract=2848415">imploded within a few years</a>, more than 40 states were initially quick to take the deal.</p>
<h2>The threat to public schools in general</h2>
<p>The administration plans to go beyond the education budget alone. Although it is holding back the details <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/05/23/devos-school-choice-should-expand-but-not-washington-d-c/338413001/">for now</a>, the administration is close to proposing an entire <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/18/sources-devos-to-unveil-school-choice-plans-in-policy-speech-238544">new tax scheme</a> to fund private education. This new program would give individuals and businesses <a href="https://theconversation.com/tax-credits-school-choice-and-neovouchers-what-you-need-to-know-74808">tax credits</a> for “donating” to organizations that pay for students’ tuition at private schools. </p>
<p>In the past, states have experimented with traditional school voucher programs, which are typically limited to small numbers of low-income students. The new tax credit system, by contrast, could be used by states to fund wealthier students – and could be opened up to enrollment at religious schools as well. </p>
<p>As a result, enrollment in these programs has risen dramatically in comparison to traditional vouchers. In states like Florida and Indiana, the size of these programs <a href="https://ssrn.com/abstract=2745915">quadrupled</a> in just a few years.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/170377/original/file-20170522-7384-upiyxv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/170377/original/file-20170522-7384-upiyxv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/170377/original/file-20170522-7384-upiyxv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/170377/original/file-20170522-7384-upiyxv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/170377/original/file-20170522-7384-upiyxv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/170377/original/file-20170522-7384-upiyxv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/170377/original/file-20170522-7384-upiyxv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Secretary DeVos visits SLAM Charter School in Miami.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/departmentofed/33152025944/in/album-72157682413273936/">US Department of Education/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>A wolf in school choice clothing</h2>
<p>On the surface, these policies are just about moving money around – freeing up traditional public school funding to spur growth in charter and private schools. Below the surface, however, I believe the new budget undermines confidence in public education.</p>
<p>North Carolina offers a cautionary tale. A few years ago, North Carolina slashed its traditional education budget by 20 percent, while doubling its expenditures on charter schools. Since then, North Carolina’s public schools have fallen from being among the finest in the nation to <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2015/08/07/north-carolinas-step-by-step-war-on-public-education/?utm_term=.eadd3edef376">some of the worst</a>.</p>
<p>Policies like these misunderstand why we have public education in the first place. Our government institutions have long funded public schools because they produce <a href="https://ssrn.com/abstract=2277371">benefits for society as a whole</a>: productive citizens, social values, shared experiences and an effective workforce. Individuals surely benefit, but the pursuit of these societal goals is the reason that our states provide education.</p>
<p>Trump’s effort to reshape school financing reflects a vision of education that is not public at all. This new vision is all about individuals, ignoring what may happen to our societal values, public schools and the neediest students who will be left behind.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/78071/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Derek W. Black does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The Trump administration’s new education budget cuts money from traditional schools and funnels it toward school choice. Is it a nail in the coffin for public education?Derek W. Black, Professor of Law, University of South CarolinaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/748082017-04-14T13:56:25Z2017-04-14T13:56:25ZTax credits, school choice and ‘neovouchers’: What you need to know<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/165293/original/image-20170413-25898-14wcw52.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Should taxpayer dollars fund private education?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/elementary-school-pupils-running-playground-284501777?src=-7i_gVOjcgfbUP4mAhpK9Q-1-1">Monkey Business Images / Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>As Republican lawmakers craft a <a href="http://www.providencejournal.com/news/20170325/trump-gop-turn-to-tax-overhaul">tax reform bill</a>, there’s <a href="http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TRUMP_TAXES">speculation</a> on the import taxes, value-added taxes and tax cuts it may usher in. Meanwhile, it’s likely that the bill will also include a major education policy initiative from the Trump administration: a <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-schools-tax-credit-public-private-235228">tax credit designed to fund private school vouchers</a>.</p>
<p>A decade ago I started researching this <a href="https://www.c-span.org/video/?282880-1/tuition-tax-credits">new kind of voucher</a> – funded through a somewhat convoluted tax credit mechanism – that appears to have particular appeal to <a href="http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/national-international/Experts-Talk-Education-Under-Trump-DeVos--416373583.html">President Trump and other Republicans</a>.</p>
<p>These new vouchers (or “neovouchers”) are similar to conventional vouchers in many ways, but there are some important differences. It’s those differences that neovoucher advocates most care about and that everyone should understand.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/165292/original/image-20170413-25898-1dhmkx1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/165292/original/image-20170413-25898-1dhmkx1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/165292/original/image-20170413-25898-1dhmkx1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=388&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/165292/original/image-20170413-25898-1dhmkx1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=388&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/165292/original/image-20170413-25898-1dhmkx1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=388&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/165292/original/image-20170413-25898-1dhmkx1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=488&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/165292/original/image-20170413-25898-1dhmkx1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=488&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/165292/original/image-20170413-25898-1dhmkx1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=488&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">President Donald Trump and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos tour Saint Andrew Catholic School in Orlando, Florida.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/Alex Brandon</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Conventional vouchers</h2>
<p>What exactly is a school voucher? Typically, a voucher is direct financial support that helps families pay for the cost of private K-12 schooling. Proponents see vouchers as a way to <a href="https://www.federationforchildren.org/school-choice-america/programs-qualifications/">help children attend nonpublic schools</a>. Detractors see vouchers as <a href="https://theconversation.com/do-school-vouchers-improve-results-it-depends-on-what-we-ask-55003">undermining funding and support needed by public education</a>.</p>
<p>All vouchers subsidize tuition with tax dollars. This can be accomplished in many ways, and the nuances matter.</p>
<p>Conventional voucher policies use the relatively straightforward method of allocating state money to give vouchers directly to eligible parents. The parents, in turn, give the vouchers to a private school of their choice. These schools are sometimes secular, but are <a href="https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cgc.asp">usually religious</a>.</p>
<p>The private schools then redeem these vouchers to obtain money from the state. In the <a href="https://www.edchoice.org/school-choice/school-choice-in-america/">16 states</a> where conventional voucher policies exist, they produce about 175,000 vouchers annually. This amounts to 3.3 percent of the nation’s private school population.</p>
<p>Yet, these direct vouchering programs present four major problems for school choice advocates.</p>
<p>First, they’re typically available only to <a href="https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737024002145">lower-income families</a>; wealthier families are usually not eligible.</p>
<p>Second, when governments directly provide voucher money, participating schools are generally required to comply with <a href="https://edex.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/publication/pdfs/20130129-School-Choice-Regulations-Red-Tape-or-Red-Herring-FINAL_7.pdf">a variety of guidelines</a>, such as accreditation requirements, anti-discrimination regulation, minimum teacher qualifications, financial reporting and/or the administration of a standardized test to students receiving the voucher.</p>
<p>Third, vouchers are <a href="http://www.shankerinstitute.org/sites/shanker/files/pdkpoll47_2015.pdf#page=18">simply not politically popular</a> – which is why the more palatable term “<a href="http://schoolsites.schoolworld.com/schools/Cheltenham/webpages/rwilman/files/article-lemann-the%20word%20lab.pdf">opportunity scholarships</a>” (courtesy of messaging guru <a href="http://www.luntzglobal.com/team/frank-luntz/">Frank Luntz</a>) has become increasingly popular.</p>
<p>Finally – and importantly – <a href="https://comm.ncsl.org/productfiles/82733543/Session_Powerpoint.pdf">state constitutions</a> often prohibit the channeling of state money to religious institutions. In many states, this means that conventional voucher programs cannot exist if the program includes religious schools. Although the Supreme Court has ruled that <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/536/639/case.html">vouchers don’t violate federal law</a>, state constitutions can create <a href="http://law.justia.com/constitution/colorado/cnart9.html">legal obstacles</a> that are more formidable than those under the U.S. Constitution.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/165299/original/image-20170413-25886-1qah0et.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/165299/original/image-20170413-25886-1qah0et.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/165299/original/image-20170413-25886-1qah0et.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/165299/original/image-20170413-25886-1qah0et.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/165299/original/image-20170413-25886-1qah0et.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/165299/original/image-20170413-25886-1qah0et.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/165299/original/image-20170413-25886-1qah0et.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">St. Joseph Academy, a Catholic school in Cleveland, is one of the top three schools to benefit from Ohio voucher dollars. Ohio’s conventional vouchers can be applied to secular and nonsecular schools alike, but 97 percent go to religious schools.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Saint_Joseph_Academy_Campus.jpg">Oarbogast / Wikimedia Commons</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Vouchers on steroids</h2>
<p>To sidestep these issues, many state lawmakers have embraced a new kind of voucher policy that gets essentially the same result but changes the state’s role from paying for vouchers to issuing tax credits.</p>
<p>This approach was first adopted in Arizona, in 1997, where the legislature <a href="https://www.azleg.gov/ars/43/01089.htm">passed a law</a> setting up a system in which any taxpayer could “donate” money to a special, private nonprofit corporation. That corporation then issues vouchers to parents, who use them to pay for private school tuition. The taxpayers then get the money back from the state in the form of a tax credit.</p>
<p><a href="http://law.justia.com/constitution/arizona/2/12.htm">Arizona’s constitution</a> – typical of language in state constitutions – requires that “No public money or property shall be appropriated for or applied to any religious worship, exercise, or instruction, or to the support of any religious establishment.” But Arizona’s elaborate mechanism keeps the specific dollars out of state coffers. Consequently, state funding only indirectly supports religious institutions. The <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v8n36.2000">Arizona Supreme Court</a> found this distinction sufficient, ruling that the tax credits did not violate the state’s constitutional prohibition against spending public money for religious support.</p>
<p>Beyond this legal advantage, advocates favor this sort of tax-credit-voucher method because it appears <a href="https://www.cato.org/education-wiki/scholarship-tax-credits-vouchers">less likely to be regulated</a>. It’s also likely to be open to a wider range of parents – not just lower-income or special needs families. And the complexity of the neovoucher approach <a href="http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2008/09/03/02welner.h28.html">obscures the fact that it’s really a voucher program</a>, making it less of a political lightning rod.</p>
<p>Some wealthy taxpayers can even receive tax benefits exceeding the <a href="http://itep.org/itep_reports/2016/10/state-tax-subsidies-for-private-k-12-education.php#.WM1mZUffuOw">value of their donations</a>. This baffling outcome is because of a loophole tied to the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), an extra tax imposed on some wealthier taxpayers to ensure that they pay their fair share. The AMT limits certain tax breaks, such as the ability to deduct state tax payments from federal taxes. However – and here’s the twist – these AMT taxpayers can deduct charitable contributions. And so, these wealthier taxpayers can shift their state tax payment into a “charitable” contribution and instantly transform the payment into a federal deduction. In the six states that give a full tax credit for voucher donations, those taxpayers can get back the full value of their voucher plus a deduction for the donation.</p>
<p>A decade ago when I wrote a book explaining these tax credit policies and labeling them “<a href="https://rowman.com/ISBN/9780742540804">neovouchers</a>,” they existed in only six states and generated about 100,000 vouchers. Today, <a href="https://www.edchoice.org/school-choice/school-choice-in-america/">17 states</a> have tax-credit policies similar to Arizona’s on their books, generating a quarter-million vouchers and growing every year.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/165287/original/image-20170413-10077-jto263.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/165287/original/image-20170413-10077-jto263.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/165287/original/image-20170413-10077-jto263.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=314&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/165287/original/image-20170413-10077-jto263.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=314&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/165287/original/image-20170413-10077-jto263.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=314&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/165287/original/image-20170413-10077-jto263.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/165287/original/image-20170413-10077-jto263.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/165287/original/image-20170413-10077-jto263.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Students at The King’s Academy in West Palm Beach, Florida. Florida is one of the states that issues tax-credit-style vouchers.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_King%27s_Academy_Campus_-.jpg_M._Nelson_Loveland.jpg">Randal Martin / Wikipedia</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>These new vouchers aren’t likely to help kids</h2>
<p>Do these vouchers improve student achievement? The research suggests that we shouldn’t expect children’s learning to be affected.</p>
<p>An <a href="http://www.floridaschoolchoice.org/pdf/FTC_Research_2012-13_report.pdf">evaluation of Florida’s neovoucher law</a> – which <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-devos-florida-school-choice-20170409-story.html">the Trump administration appears to be using as its model</a> – found that students receiving these neovouchers had a nonsignificant (-0.7 percentile points) loss in math and nonsignificant (+0.1 percentile points) gain in reading on standardized test scores. </p>
<p>Similarly, research focused on conventional vouchers has tended to reach this <a href="http://www.epi.org/publication/school-vouchers-are-not-a-proven-strategy-for-improving-student-achievement">same conclusion</a>, finding no significant change in student test scores. More recent studies, looking at conventional vouchers in <a href="http://migrationcluster.ucdavis.edu/events/past-events/events_2015-2016/conf_assets/aclec/papers_and_slides/paper_walters.pdf">Louisiana</a>, <a href="https://edex.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/publication/pdfs/FORDHAM%20Ed%20Choice%20Evaluation%20Report_online%20edition.pdf">Ohio</a> and <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/research/on-negative-effects-of-vouchers/">Indiana</a> actually find that test scores have declined – in some cases, by surprisingly large margins.</p>
<h2>What to expect</h2>
<p>While, thus far, neovoucher policies have existed only on the state level, proposals are now appearing at a federal level.</p>
<p>In February of 2017, Rep. Todd Rokita of Indiana and three Republican colleagues introduced a bill (<a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/895">H.B. 895</a>) that sets forth the basic structure for a federal neovoucher policy.</p>
<p>But the particulars of the neovoucher policy that ultimately emerges in the Republicans’ tax reform bill are up for grabs. Based on the wide variety of existing state neovoucher policies, it is possible that the federal proposal will provide a full 100 percent credit (as does H.B. 895) or a credit of only 50 or 65 percent. It might limit eligibility to children in families at the poverty level, or it might have expanded or even universal eligibility.</p>
<p>It also remains to be seen whether federal neovouchers would be allocated only in states with existing programs or might be distributed in all states, including those with no such laws.</p>
<p>Interestingly, some of the staunchest advocates of state-level neovouchers have expressed <a href="http://www.heritage.org/education/event/school-choice-and-national-education-policy-options-advancing-education-choice">concern and even opposition</a> to a federal initiative. Beyond general conservative resistance to federal overreach in education policy, they voice <a href="https://www.usnews.com/news/education-news/articles/2017-03-24/liberals-conservatives-agree-big-mistake-for-white-house-to-push-private-school-choice">familiar concerns</a> about the likelihood of regulations following money, particularly from future Democratic leadership in Washington, D.C.</p>
<p>And, of course, a federal neovoucher program would face significant fiscal obstacles as well. Absent large cuts elsewhere, these policies would strain the federal budget, requiring some creative work on the part of lawmakers – particularly since the tax reform bill will have to be <a href="http://www.tpctax.com/washington-tax-insight-february-2017/">revenue neutral</a>. The cost of vouchers for even a fraction of the nation’s 57 million K-12 students could easily cost tens of billions.</p>
<p>This daunting price tag, however, probably won’t deter President Trump or Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, who have stated their opposition to the “public” part of public schools, with Trump even denigrating them as socialistic “<a href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/11/trump-betsy-devos-overton-window">government schools</a>” that are part of the “<a href="https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/american-carnage-a-close-reading-of-president-trumps-first-speech">American carnage</a>” that “leaves our young and beautiful students deprived of all knowledge.”</p>
<p>It seems unlikely that they will forego their chance to give tax dollars to private education.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/74808/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Research for Kevin Welner's "NeoVouchers" book received support from the Rockefeller Foundation, through its Bellagio Center Residency Program.</span></em></p>As school choice advocates attempt to garner more widespread support for vouchers, a new kind of voucher system is growing: one that uses tax credits to subsidize private education.Kevin Welner, Professor, Education Policy & Law; Director, National Education Policy Center, University of Colorado BoulderLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.